Religion: The Deuce

[Zcorp]

Incidentally, the former is exactly what you asked for, and the latter is not something Utnapishtim ever endorsed.

Where do you perceive I asked for it, I can't find where I did.
Utnapishtim did endorse the latter

The Old Testament is part of the Christian Bible. But it is not doctrine. It is a record.

Unless your argument is the semantics of record vs history he did exactly that.

This is ironic, coming from somebody who just condescendingly defined the word "straw-man" in the Serious Business forum.

Defining a logical fallacy is condescending?
I defined it as he made a fallacious argument, which led me to believe he was unaware of the premise or that he thought I was.
I assumed that we were trying to discuss topics on this forum not debate them, and thus I thought it inappropriate to use rhetoric. Maybe my understanding of SB was incorrect.

Typically the first person to yell LOGICAL FALLACY is the greatest transgressor, and has just derailed a thread into bickering about ... bickering. So it's a trigger word that almost *always* ends with purple text.

-Az

[Utnapishtim]

Sorry. I ought to fix my mistake. ZCorp, you're right for pointing it out.

The Old Testament is part of the Christian Bible. But it is not necessarily Christian doctrine. It is a record.

Fixed.

[Zcorp]

The Old Testament is part of the Christian Bible. But it is not necessarily Christian doctrine. It is a record.

Now, which parts of the old testament are part of its doctrine? It would seem no sect within christianity can agree, thus ambiguity within even the definition of Christianity and why I tried to define it. The Bible is way to subjective, which following Pirsig's MOQ it can not be of Quality. While there is much left to debate and understand about MOQ it touches on something prevalent within a variety of topics. Science and Art (Understanding), Creatively and Structure (Thought), Pessimism and Optimism (Realism), Yin and Yang (Taijitu), Literal and Figurative (Interpretation), Knowledge and Talent (Proficient, I hate this word I prefer to use Skilled but its definition does not quite fit) or various other divides within our modern philosophy.

The Bible is not definitive in its mean offering little to no objective material, unless you look at it all objectively which I can't imagine a single person alive today does. Although some come scarily close.

[Azrael]

Dear Current Thread Participants:

Walk away for at least 24 hours.

Enhance your calm, John Spartan.

[TheGrammarBolshevik]

As the current thread of discussion seems to have died off, I'd like to bring up a new thought that's been bugging me today.

In various threads in N&A (most recently, the one on underage sexual assault offenders), it's been broadly agreed that criminal justice should primarily be reformative or rehabilitative, or at the very least a deterrent; very few accept that it is legitimate to inflict punishment for the sole purpose of taking vengeance, or causing suffering to people who deserve it.

With that in mind, I note that most Christians believe that there is some form of eternal punishment (i.e. Hell) for at least some people — depending on denomination, qualifications may include nonbelief (or, more properly, sin without salvation by faith), unrepentance of moral sin, or rejection of a direct revelation of God. Even those denominations that reject the idea of Hell are usually built around belief in God's mercy — and, since that word is rather defined by its opposite, there is nevertheless some supposition that God is initially motivated to punish people.

Now, I have already read a fair bit about the Problem of Hell, and I'm not immediately concerned with discussing whether God is justified in punishing people. Instead, my question is this: for what purpose would God intend to inflict punishment on any particular individual?

[eMesreveR]

Out of necessity, since he is a Just God, evidently.

[Naurgul]

In my opinion, the personal feeling of wanting to take vengeance is the building block for the emergent system of negative reinforcement. That is, through evolution, each individual, by wanting people who harm them to be punished would contribute to creating a general system in which negative behaviour is discouraged through the perceived expectation of punishment. In this light, a God which wants bad people to get their deserved punishment for divine justice and a God that wants to make people abide by his moral standards by threatening them with eternal damnation is one and the same.

[bentheimmigrant]

Now, I have already read a fair bit about the Problem of Hell, and I'm not immediately concerned with discussing whether God is justified in punishing people. Instead, my question is this: for what purpose would God intend to inflict punishment on any particular individual?

I can only speak from my interpretation of the Bible, and this may differ from the generally accepted Christian view, but Hell is not so much a form of vengeance, but the need to fulfil the wages of sin (that being death). As we were created in His image, that is, eternal beings, Hell is basically death forever. The Bible refers to it (actually the lake of fire, not hell - but that's a whole different discussion), as the second death. The trouble comes, IMO, when we try to equate heaven and hell with God's love and hate (the Bible says sin does not separate from His love). It's a matter of Justice and Mercy, and if we do not accept the mercy, God is left with no other choice but punishment. If we accept the mercy (become saved), we are seen as innocent, and thus justice rewards us. God works in absolutes - right and wrong. The Bible says hell was created for the devil, as a punishment for his sin. All sin is the same, resulting in the same punishment. As eMesreveR said, it is a matter of being just. So basically God is bound by justice to punish sin. That doesn't mean he's especially excited at the prospect.

[TheGrammarBolshevik]

Out of necessity, since he is a Just God, evidently.

So basically God is bound by justice to punish sin.

But if justice makes punishment necessary, how can the punisher offer mercy?

[bentheimmigrant]

But if justice makes punishment necessary, how can the punisher offer mercy?

Mercy is very simply obtained by asking for it (repentance). It is offered because of Jesus' death. The punishment of a sinless man on your behalf means that your sin has been transferred to him. This is the foundational doctrine of Christian salvation. We messed up. Jesus came and showed us how to live right, was killed by sinners, and hung in our place as a sacrifice(like the sacrifices of animals in the OT, but with much more power). But those who do not repent are not accepting that sacrifice, and therefore retain their punishment.

[TheGrammarBolshevik]

Oh, I know the Christian theology; I was a Christian for a long time, and I'm still looking for a way back into the faith. But the possibility of mercy means that punishment is not, in fact, necessary; or, if it is only necessary that someone needs to suffer, whether he is the actual sinner or not, then this seems contradictory to the very nature of punishment, and to the notion that justice is what makes this punishment necessary. Certainly, nobody regards the (apocryphal?) whipping boy of the Middle Ages as a case of true punishment or justice.

[Walter.Horvath]

The point is that somebody has to believe in Christianity to make it make sense for them to want to repent. If not, you're punished for not, and if you're physically unable to but want to, then you're fine.

When it comes down to it, real Christians are ones that aren't just labeled as such, rather they always seek (whatever form of) repentance.

And I'm not sure why it comes down to punishing someone for eternity, when it comes to believing, but you have until your theoretical last second to decide where you want to go, and past that there is no turning back.

[Phill]

Oh, I know the Christian theology; I was a Christian for a long time, and I'm still looking for a way back into the faith. But the possibility of mercy means that punishment is not, in fact, necessary; or, if it is only necessary that someone needs to suffer, whether he is the actual sinner or not, then this seems contradictory to the very nature of punishment, and to the notion that justice is what makes this punishment necessary. Certainly, nobody regards the (apocryphal?) whipping boy of the Middle Ages as a case of true punishment or justice.

Have a read of "The Cross of Christ" by John Stott, it's a classic and he explores many of these kind of questions. I'd highly recommend it.

I think one sense in which it is just is that Jesus voluntarily took the punishment. It's not like punishing any random person and calling that just.

Also Jesus uses the word 'ransom', i.e. we have a debt to God which we could never pay ourselves - but through Jesus' life, death and resurrection it has been paid.

Essentially, I think a lot happened at the cross and you can't do justice to it in a short post like this one

[bentheimmigrant]

Have a read of "The Cross of Christ" by John Stott, it's a classic and he explores many of these kind of questions. I'd highly recommend it.

I think one sense in which it is just is that Jesus voluntarily took the punishment. It's not like punishing any random person and calling that just.

Also Jesus uses the word 'ransom', i.e. we have a debt to God which we could never pay ourselves - but through Jesus' life, death and resurrection it has been paid.

Essentially, I think a lot happened at the cross and you can't do justice to it in a short post like this one

Exactly.

The key to understanding this is to see that God accepts sacrifice. He instituted the concept very early (some say in Eden, when he made clothes for Adam and Eve from an animal skin, hence killing the animal). But it says that the sacrifices in the Law were made weak by the fact that the animal sacrifices were insufficient - they covered sin but did not remove it. The Bible is very clear that our sin was transferred onto Jesus just as in the sacrifices in the OT, but his sacrifice is sufficient for the cleansing of sin - not just covering. Because your sin is then removed, then you are no longer guilty, and justice cannot punish the innocent.

For God made Christ, who never sinned, to be the offering for our sin, so that we could be made right with God through Christ.

[winegums]

It's a matter of Justice and Mercy, and if we do not accept the mercy, God is left with no other choice but punishment. If we accept the mercy (become saved), we are seen as innocent, and thus justice rewards us. God works in absolutes - right and wrong. The Bible says hell was created for the devil, as a punishment for his sin. All sin is the same, resulting in the same punishment. As eMesreveR said, it is a matter of being just. So basically God is bound by justice to punish sin. That doesn't mean he's especially excited at the prospect.

But god, being omnipotent, must be able to define Justice, Mercy, Right, Wrong, etc. They should be arbitrary rules within his domain, otherwise he's not all powerful/omnipotent. Hence he only has to punish the sinners as much as he wants to.

Actually I'd like to know if any religious people here actually believe in the idea that their god is omnipotent. I've always found it creates many inconsistencies.

[bentheimmigrant]

But god, being omnipotent, must be able to define Justice, Mercy, Right, Wrong, etc. They should be arbitrary rules within his domain, otherwise he's not all powerful/omnipotent. Hence he only has to punish the sinners as much as he wants to.

Actually I'd like to know if any religious people here actually believe in the idea that their god is omnipotent. I've always found it creates many inconsistencies.

I suppose he does define those things. Or perhaps they are more a part of his nature than "arbitrary rules." It says in the Bible that God takes no delight in the death of sinners. An article by Charles Finney seems to cover this one pretty well.

From my point of view, God is omnipotent, and I fail to see the inconsistencies that you mention. Do you have any examples?

[JBJ]

But god, being omnipotent, must be able to define Justice, Mercy, Right, Wrong, etc. They should be arbitrary rules within his domain, otherwise he's not all powerful/omnipotent. Hence he only has to punish the sinners as much as he wants to.

Actually I'd like to know if any religious people here actually believe in the idea that their god is omnipotent. I've always found it creates many inconsistencies.

I suppose he does define those things. Or perhaps they are more a part of his nature than "arbitrary rules." It says in the Bible that God takes no delight in the death of sinners. An article by Charles Finney seems to cover this one pretty well.

From my point of view, God is omnipotent, and I fail to see the inconsistencies that you mention. Do you have any examples?

If God is truly omnipotent, then free-will is out the window. Anyone who sins was predestined to sin, so God is punishing people for doing what he set them up to do. Cosmic entrapment.

PS. Fix'd your URL tag.

[MoghLiechty2]

If God is truly omnipotent, then free-will is out the window. Anyone who sins was predestined to sin, so God is punishing people for doing what he set them up to do. Cosmic entrapment.

Not getting involved in discussion, but, just going to drop a link for us having already discussed this... This also belongs in a philosophy thread.

What you've done, JBJ, is simply defined theological incompatibilism (a disputed viewpoint) without supporting it with a logically inductive argument. It'd be the equivalent of posting "John McCain is a better candidate than Barack Obama" by itself in a Politics forum.

Beginning of discussion. (A lot of this is about omniscience vs. free will, but we throw omnipotence in there somewhere)

Essentially, to say that free will cannot co-exist with omnipotence, one has to define free will in a way that is different from the theological compatibilist in the first place...

[Zcorp]

What you've done, JBJ, is simply defined theological incompatibilism (a disputed viewpoint) without supporting it with a logically inductive argument. It'd be the equivalent of posting "John McCain is a better candidate than Barack Obama" by itself in a Politics forum.

Thats a bit disingenuous.

Beginning of discussion.

This discussion has the same problem that we came across. It turned into a debate do the lack of proper grammar.
For both of this and the linked discussions there is no definition of God, omnipotent, omniscience, Christianity or religion. Making it a discourse of rhetoric and semantics rather then logic and grammar.

The God concept works wonderfully with both omnipotent and omniscience if we remove an idea that God has consciousness.
God is just everything thus it sees everything and knows everything. Any action that ever happens is God thus God is omnipotent.

[bentheimmigrant]

If God is truly omnipotent, then free-will is out the window. Anyone who sins was predestined to sin, so God is punishing people for doing what he set them up to do. Cosmic entrapment.

Why does that mean there is no free will? I think you've got the wrong definition of potent. Just because He can do anything does not mean He does. An omnipotent God who could not also allow free will if He so chose would not be omnipotent.

[Kaelri]

If God is truly omnipotent, then free-will is out the window. Anyone who sins was predestined to sin, so God is punishing people for doing what he set them up to do. Cosmic entrapment.

Why does that mean there is no free will? I think you've got the wrong definition of potent. Just because He can do anything does not mean He does. An omnipotent God who could not also allow free will if He so chose would not be omnipotent.

The idea is that if God created everything, including both physical nature and human nature, then he has predetermined all human choices. In other words, the chain of causes that leads to every action begins with God. We interact with the external world in a manner governed by causal rules - rules which were predetermined by God. And if God is omniscient, he is necessarily aware of how all events will unfold. The course of history can be derived directly from the initial conditions of the world.

So to say that we have "free will" in this scenario is like saying Pavlov's dog freely chooses to drool when you ring a bell for him.

[Zcorp]

If God is truly omnipotent, then free-will is out the window. Anyone who sins was predestined to sin, so God is punishing people for doing what he set them up to do. Cosmic entrapment.

Why does that mean there is no free will? I think you've got the wrong definition of potent. Just because He can do anything does not mean He does. An omnipotent God who could not also allow free will if He so chose would not be omnipotent.

See, now your just arguing over the definition of omnipotent, it is also difficult in modern english to find a definition without the use of God or almighty within the definition.

JBJ is using a more literal definition. Omni = All and Potent = Power. This definition is generally disregarded by most Christians when they attribute the adjective of omnipotence to God. Because they don't like the idea of not having free will.

If God was All Power then we could not have free will, as that would be a power outside of God and thus God would not be All Power. Which brings up all these problems that are being discussed now.

You likely mean a definition more like: having unlimited or very great power.
At which point many people get frustrated as this has large inherent ambiguities. As in, is God's power unlimited or just very great. If it is just very great what are the limitations. Then the simulation possibility.If we can simulate a world and effect it, are we not that worlds God? Could 'our' God be the same thing, and just be a vast power in our universe but be only as powerful as we are in his.

It seems the choices of definition are essentially God is not All Power which opens it up to a huge amount of further questions. Or God is All Power and no one has free will.

[Philosophaster]

It says in Matthew that not even a sparrow falls apart from God. That seems to point in the direction of God controlling everything, if we're talking about Christianity.

[Chicostick]

I feel like most religions are flawed, as interpretations can vary tremendously, and as creations of men trying to understand something like God, there will be inevitable flaws.

Religions in general are many times a product of children being told by their parents, and they in turn telling their children. People go to religions because they want to believe in something, and instead of thinking they just head to a place that specializes in the buisness of giving people beliefs.

I feel that no religion is really all that concrete, if you visit say 10 different churches and ask particular people about their interpretations of their religion, in many instances their accounts will vary widely.

To me, this means that religion is a personal matter, completely and totally.

For me, I feel no person can have the idea of God shown to them in a book, you can't learn to believe in something by singing songs and having a guy talk to you about things. I feel the easiest way to get in touch with "God" is to go to a place where there are no buildings or other people, sit down, and listen and watch. Personally, I believe at one point there was some sort of benevolent force that certainly had a hand in shaping things as they are. But does it watch over us all? No. Does it create miracles? No. Does it believe one religion is better than another? I doubt it even understands what religion is. Our universe a project, put together by something, and now we're all just sort of living in that project. There may be an afterlife, or there may not. If there is, great! If there isn't, it won't matter anyway as we'll have no knowledge of it. If there's a Hell, I doubt it would be eternal, I feel like it would be a place for those to go and learn on their own what their actions did and have true atonement, not endless torture.

In the end, all of that is my opinion. That's the whole point really. Believe whatever you want. Debating religion is foolish, this thread in itself will never reach an end as there's no end to be reached.

[Vanguard]

^I wish more believers thought that way. Instead, they feel the need to flock into churches, waste their time listening to a guy read a book they probably shouldn't even read.
But it's all understandable, really. People need their thoughts justified. No better way than to surround yourself with similarly-thinking people.

[Spacemilk]

NInja'd from the previous page, but hopefully not in a way that will restart the discussion of rhetoric instead of religion:

In Response to SpaceMilk, May 14th:
I'm not arguing human nature btw. I'm arguing against a structure, I suppose primarily the Bible, that condones in hatred and intolerance. States that you should stone a women for getting raped, that a man laying with another man as you would a woman offends God. This IS what the primary structure of the Christian faith states this and various other horrid things. Yet its worshipped.

First of all: Do not, under any circumstances, use the word "worshipped" as relates to the Bible, Mary, or anything that isn't God. This is a touchy subject for a lot of Christians, particularly Catholics. There is a definite line between "holds as sacred (definition: "entitled to veneration or religious respect by association with divinity or divine things; holy." copied from dictionary.com)" and "worships".

Second of all, if you want to say "followed literally by a very small percent of people in the world", ok then. If you want to say "there is a small percent that follows some of the ridiculous precepts but not all", ok then. If you want to actually be correct and say "there is a very complex transition in the Bible from Judaism to Christianity so Christians do not follow the laws of the Old Testament literally but instead through the lens of personal morality as set forth by Jesus in the New Testament", great! You're on the road to a more correct, less offensive, less generalizing view of Christianity as a whole! Sorry, but I have no patience for people who use a small subset of fundamentalist believers to paint a picture of the entire set, all because they didn't take the time to research how things actually were.

Third, I think you realize that the Biblical precepts you quote are not Christian beliefs today. The Bible is partially a historical document (Old Testament), from the point of view of seeing how Judaism developed and eventually became Christianity through the teachings of Jesus Christ, and partly a document containing moral guidelines and interpretations (New Testament). Now, please go find an actual Biblical passage in the New Testament that condones hatred and real intolerance. And by real intolerance, I mean the Fred-Phelps-style, "fags should and will burn in hell" approach, rather than the REAL Biblical approach which is "hate the sin, love the sinner". Once you do that, we can actually have a real discussion.

Now lets compare this to science

Scientific method refers to bodies of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.

No where does the structure of the scientific method mention that you must harm people to be a good Scientist. I don't imagine that you partake in the majority of actions the Bible suggests, but it still suggests it. You don't feel this is flawed? That maybe the the its sub-sects needs to take a look at its foundations and re-evaluate using this Book as it is as a path to find God. What I'm not doing is arguing the nature of God, which it seems your leaning towards please correct me if this is false. I am arguing that Christianity, the Christianity that is based on the Bible is hugely flawed in its foundation and for some reason no one is willing to correct this.

Did you read the above posts about the Magesterium of science and religion? Those posts were most excellent. And no, Science does not suggest a framework of morality. It suggests a framework of reality, of how things truly are. Based on our studies of science, we can learn how to react to reality so we survive and therefore be better animals. However that does not tell us how we should react to reality in order to be better people.

Here's a rather silly thought experiment: If we used Science as a medium for determining our reality, then survival would be the utmost ideal since that is what evolution clearly gears us towards. The best survivor who does the best job of passing on their genes is the best human. So rape would not only be acceptable, but encouraged so that you could pass on your genes. Murdering someone who is infringing on your resources is a great idea if the resources are somewhat rare - otherwise you won't survive! Ok, yes, if we didn't have our ingrained prejudices against rape and murder, MAYBE we could fathom a situation where we would believe something like this. But once again, such a belief system doesn't do anything for us but make us better animals, not better humans.

Lastly you quoted a short paragraph from Wikipedia about the scientific method, for Christ's sake (no pun intended!), and then triumphantly declared that the scientific method as shown on Wikipedia doesn't tell you to harm anyone! I hate to say this, because I do agree with you, but you didn't prove anything. You made such a jump, with such a ridiculous starting place, it was completely nonsensical.

And "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is found across a variety of different fields in science. Not only is it found there it is improved upon.

Emphatically no. The Golden Rule is not found in nature. The Golden Rule of Nature is: "Do unto others before they do unto you and screw you." The Golden Rule is an invention of humans. We subvert the natural order of the world when we use the Biblical Golden Rule.

Science gives us tools to think. It's goal is to give understanding of existence.
It talks of morals within the fields of at least psychology, sociology, economics, anthropology and political science. And gives reasoning for those morals without requiring faith. So it most definitely encroaches on religious domain. You seem to have a misconception of what science is. Empirical evidence can disprove false morals. It can also give us morals.

Hopefully I answered this sufficiently above, but once again: I think you have the misconception of science, as well as what "morals" are. Once again, the conception of what is "moral" comes from a decision to define what is right and wrong when reacting to reality in a non-animalistic way. There is no way that empirical evidence can disprove false morals, because morals are formed as a result of empirical evidence. Could you change your morals based on a change in the empirical evidence before you? Yes, but I wouldn't call that "disproving" them. Nor would I say that science had given you a new moral - it just gave you the framework and the information so you could begin to edit your moral code. Also, by "moral belief" I mean, a belief that determines how you act and what you should do if you want to be a good person.

Also, I can't think of a moral belief that has ever been disproven by science, but maybe you can think of one. The biggest thing that has been disproven by science is the Creationist belief, and that is NOT (I repeat, NOT!) a moral belief. It is a historical belief which has most assuredly been disproven by science, and most Christians accept that it has been disproven.

Christianity makes claims about how existence works yes. Thats all it does. The lack of over lap is in structure, not what the structure speaks of.

Ok here I think is where you are going wrong. In the simplest form: We pick the "who" and the "what". Science answers the "how". Religion answers the "why", or more specifically, "what is the meaning". There *is no* overlap if you truly understand it.


I'm going to go ahead and answer this one, even though I don't feel it meets my request for quoting a Biblical passage that proves intolerance:

He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me.

God is intolerant those who care more for father, mother, son or daughter then God. Those who do not follow him also met with that intolerance.

Well ok, I won't answer it, I'll just reiterate what Mogh said: "God rejecting those who reject Him is exactly the thing you'd expect given Christianity's message." But you came up with a pretty awful example of intolerance, especially when you started your intolerance argument in relation to "stoning" and such things. So far your argument has been: "The Bible promotes stoning and intolerance!" Example please? "Uhh . . . God says people who don't love him aren't worthy of him!" Ok well, that has *nothing* to do with how you started, so you've completely changed your base argument, and the example you gave has nothing to do with anything you've said so far.


Ok last cherry-picking quote:

The problem with intolerance is lack of acceptance.

Once again, emphatically no. Intolerance is not a lack of acceptance of someone's belief. You can completely disagree with and not accept someone's view, but still tolerate it. Tolerance is merely respect for someone's view. True tolerance is being able to respectfully disagree with someone, and respectfully debate with them about, without deteriorating into straw-man and ad hominem attacks. Tolerance implies that your respect of others' belief systems enables you to better search for the Truth, because you don't spend your time belittling people who disagree with you - instead you spend your time in dialogue so one or both of you can be improved by it.

[Falling]

First of all: Do not, under any circumstances, use the word "worshipped" as relates to the Bible, Mary, or anything that isn't God. This is a touchy subject for a lot of Christians, particularly Catholics. There is a definite line between "holds as sacred (definition: "entitled to veneration or religious respect by association with divinity or divine things; holy." copied from dictionary.com)" and "worships".

Third, I think you realize that the Biblical precepts you quote are not Christian beliefs today. The Bible is partially a historical document (Old Testament), from the point of view of seeing how Judaism developed and eventually became Christianity through the teachings of Jesus Christ, and partly a document containing moral guidelines and interpretations (New Testament). Now, please go find an actual Biblical passage in the New Testament that condones hatred and real intolerance. And by real intolerance, I mean the Fred-Phelps-style, "fags should and will burn in hell" approach, rather than the REAL Biblical approach which is "hate the sin, love the sinner". Once you do that, we can actually have a real discussion.

There is not such a clear cut line between veneration and worship. I have seen the two words listed as synonyms and also appear in the definitions of each other. He is free to say claim that the actions of some Christians towards the Bible, saints, and Mary count as worship as some definitely do. Isn't this part of the reason for the reformation. Calvin, for one, believed that there was no distinction between the two.

There are many horrific actions by OT God. And yes I realize how things change in the NT and Jesus basically rewrites the rules. That doesn't change God, though, and he still did all those really scary, badass things. I've never heard any convincing way around that one.

And "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is found across a variety of different fields in science. Not only is it found there it is improved upon.

Emphatically no. The Golden Rule is not found in nature. The Golden Rule of Nature is: "Do unto others before they do unto you and screw you." The Golden Rule is an invention of humans. We subvert the natural order of the world when we use the Biblical Golden Rule.

Even more emphatically no. Saying the Golden Rule is found in "fields of science" doesn't really make any sense, but it's completely untrue that we are subverting nature. There are many instances of animals exhibiting seemingly moral behavior. In social animals, there are several benefits and it does not usually pay for an individual to look out solely for him/herself. All morality does not come from the bible.

Well ok, I won't answer it, I'll just reiterate what Mogh said: "God rejecting those who reject Him is exactly the thing you'd expect given Christianity's message." But you came up with a pretty awful example of intolerance, especially when you started your intolerance argument in relation to "stoning" and such things. So far your argument has been: "The Bible promotes stoning and intolerance!" Example please? "Uhh . . . God says people who don't love him aren't worthy of him!" Ok well, that has *nothing* to do with how you started, so you've completely changed your base argument, and the example you gave has nothing to do with anything you've said so far.

This is something I have never been able to understand about Christianity. I cant even fathom how one could reject God, in principle. Assuming the omnipotent, all-loving God of Christianity exists, it just doesn't seem possible. Sure, you may say that people do it all the time, but they obviously don't really know this God and I can't see how that would count as rejection if one doesn't even know what they're rejecting. The rebellion of the angels, for example, makes absolutely no sense. It just doesn't make any.

[Spacemilk]

First of all: Do not, under any circumstances, use the word "worshipped" as relates to the Bible, Mary, or anything that isn't God. This is a touchy subject for a lot of Christians, particularly Catholics. There is a definite line between "holds as sacred (definition: "entitled to veneration or religious respect by association with divinity or divine things; holy." copied from dictionary.com)" and "worships".

Third, I think you realize that the Biblical precepts you quote are not Christian beliefs today. The Bible is partially a historical document (Old Testament), from the point of view of seeing how Judaism developed and eventually became Christianity through the teachings of Jesus Christ, and partly a document containing moral guidelines and interpretations (New Testament). Now, please go find an actual Biblical passage in the New Testament that condones hatred and real intolerance. And by real intolerance, I mean the Fred-Phelps-style, "fags should and will burn in hell" approach, rather than the REAL Biblical approach which is "hate the sin, love the sinner". Once you do that, we can actually have a real discussion.

There is not such a clear cut line between veneration and worship. I have seen the two words listed as synonyms and also appear in the definitions of each other. He is free to say claim that the actions of some Christians towards the Bible, saints, and Mary count as worship as some definitely do. Isn't this part of the reason for the reformation. Calvin, for one, believed that there was no distinction between the two.

But then we need to make the distinction between what some of the supposed members of a certain church do, and what the actual beliefs of that church are. For example: Yes, there are some Catholics who worship the saints and Mary; or at least, what they do is close enough to worship that it counts as it. Whereas the official position of the Catholic Church is that Catholics should respect the saints and Mary and try to emulate them the way you would emulate someone you admired, but Catholics *do not* worship them as gods. You have to understand that there are a lot of members of these churches who either willfully or ignorantly hold positions that are not endorsed by the faith they claim to be part of. Such as Fred Phelps, etc.

And I'm not sure if this point was part of the 95 theses or not, but it may have been. So the basic misunderstanding (or it may have been that the Catholic Church didn't make enough of an effort to make this point clear) may have been one of the causes of the reformation.

Also just use the dictionary definitions of veneration and worship, for the sake of future discussion; I don't see any confusion there, but maybe I'm reading it differently than you are.

There are many horrific actions by OT God. And yes I realize how things change in the NT and Jesus basically rewrites the rules. That doesn't change God, though, and he still did all those really scary, badass things. I've never heard any convincing way around that one.

I've always read the OT events as things that are perfectly explainable within the realm of science, but in the Bible they are surrounded by a mysticism that is the result of a tribe that lived 4000-6000 years ago and didn't have handy things like advanced science to explain the phenomena. Once again, the Bible is better read as a historical document.

And "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is found across a variety of different fields in science. Not only is it found there it is improved upon.

Emphatically no. The Golden Rule is not found in nature. The Golden Rule of Nature is: "Do unto others before they do unto you and screw you." The Golden Rule is an invention of humans. We subvert the natural order of the world when we use the Biblical Golden Rule.

Even more emphatically no. Saying the Golden Rule is found in "fields of science" doesn't really make any sense, but it's completely untrue that we are subverting nature. There are many instances of animals exhibiting seemingly moral behavior. In social animals, there are several benefits and it does not usually pay for an individual to look out solely for him/herself. All morality does not come from the bible.

Ok good point. I should not have been so emphatic. Yes, there are animals that do selfless things or things which benefit their society instead of the individual. My point was that Nature, with its evolutionary behavior, tends to reward animals who act in their best individual interest. Obviously there are notable exceptions like ants, for example.

And I didn't say all morality came from the Bible - I didn't even come close to making that point so I'm not sure where you got it; my point was that no morality comes from science, only facts. Science gives us reality, we base our conclusions on morality on that framework of reality.

Well ok, I won't answer it, I'll just reiterate what Mogh said: "God rejecting those who reject Him is exactly the thing you'd expect given Christianity's message." But you came up with a pretty awful example of intolerance, especially when you started your intolerance argument in relation to "stoning" and such things. So far your argument has been: "The Bible promotes stoning and intolerance!" Example please? "Uhh . . . God says people who don't love him aren't worthy of him!" Ok well, that has *nothing* to do with how you started, so you've completely changed your base argument, and the example you gave has nothing to do with anything you've said so far.

This is something I have never been able to understand about Christianity. I cant even fathom how one could reject God, in principle. Assuming the omnipotent, all-loving God of Christianity exists, it just doesn't seem possible. Sure, you may say that people do it all the time, but they obviously don't really know this God and I can't see how that would count as rejection if one doesn't even know what they're rejecting. The rebellion of the angels, for example, makes absolutely no sense. It just doesn't make any.

[/quote]

Here is my understanding of what the rejection of God means:

-Not knowing about God or never having an understanding of what is meant by God doesn't count. So if you get the idea wrong, which most people probably do, then you default to the next point:
-How you live your live defines whether you reject God or not. So basically, God wants people to love others, and if you are a bad person then you've essentially rejected God, whether you knew about God or not.

^^ This is a really, really incomplete answer but my carpool wants to leave work now so I'll come back later and edit. Please don't judge me on what I've written so far for this quote because it's basically just scribbles until I have time later, I just didn't want to forget this stuff.

[Zcorp]

First of all: Do not, under any circumstances, use the word "worshipped" as relates to the Bible, Mary, or anything that isn't God. This is a touchy subject for a lot of Christians, particularly Catholics.

Nothing here is meant as a personal attack, if you feel that the Bible should not be 'worshipped' I certainly understand the position. However, many people do worship the Bible, additionally this is again semantics and grammar not looking at the intent of discussion.

The Bible is viewed as the word of God and thus it is viewed as the primary means of relating to God for most Christians (correct me if I'm making a false assumption here). As the primary means of relating to God it is a scared text that should be studied at length. While many individuals also look to find information about God and existence from other sources, the church in general does little to push their practitioners toward finding that information. In fact many churches (not all or possibly most) view it to be sacrilegious to read other holy texts.

Addressing your second point. I never once stated that I was speaking about all Christians, and even asked for a definition of Christian more then once so that we can narrow down the ambiguities. I recognize that I'm not speaking of the entire group nor am I necessarily speaking of most of the group. My point is that some Christians do follow tenants of the Bible more so then others. And that the Bible being the primary area of understanding does not tell us how to interpret it. Making most interpretations about the passages legitimate. This massive level of subjectivity from the primary source creates significant problems. Additionally, Implying that I am fully ignorant on the matter when there is an obvious breakdown of communication is not at all progressive to this conversation.

Third point, I've fully aware that some of them are not common Christians beliefs today. Thus I would propose removing such absurdities from the Bible. Making the Bible a book that strives to create a more objective path to reach 'God' additionally it would help if it tried a little harder to define God. Also do you propose that Christians should look at none of the old testament as canon for their religion?
Additionally do you believe that the Old Testament is accurate history? And do you consider gay sex to be a sin even if you tolerate or love the person? How about sodomy between married couples?

And no, Science does not suggest a framework of morality. It suggests a framework of reality, of how things truly are. Based on our studies of science, we can learn how to react to reality so we survive and therefore be better animals. However that does not tell us how we should react to reality in order to be better people.

Of course it does. This is a huge amount of subjective thought, philosophy and creativity needed to create good science. Sociology, Psychology, Economics etc. The humanities the social sciences. They try to measure progression, happiness, intelligence, enlightenment and other like terms. They give us understanding of how to better treat others for the the benefit of us and them. Is this not morality?

Here's a rather silly thought experiment: If we used Science as a medium for determining our reality, then survival would be the utmost ideal since that is what evolution clearly gears us towards. The best survivor who does the best job of passing on their genes is the best human. So rape would not only be acceptable, but encouraged so that you could pass on your genes. Murdering someone who is infringing on your resources is a great idea if the resources are somewhat rare - otherwise you won't survive! Ok, yes, if we didn't have our ingrained prejudices against rape and murder, MAYBE we could fathom a situation where we would believe something like this. But once again, such a belief system doesn't do anything for us but make us better animals, not better humans.

I certainly enjoy civil discussion. But when you refuse to have an open mind and attach ignorant statements like this discussion generally results in flaring tempers, personal attacks, giant misunderstandings and a great lack of usefulness.

Granting the axiom that the point if life is to create more life the social sciences tell us that the best way to do so is not to rape and murder people. They in fact tell us the opposite. They state that the best thing for the individual and their ability to reproduce is to cooperate and work with others. This creates a better society, one in which their offspring and others will have a larger chance surviving in. Not to mention their own lives until they die of other causes besides getting murdered. That we should have a strong sense of civic duty and work to better ourselfs by learning from and working with others. Take for example prisoners dilemma. If each individual always choose to cooperate instead of defect the net gain for each individual would be the greatest in addition to society gaining the most out of each decision, as the total value gained is greater then if one person defects. Of course economics looks at scarcity and works to best manage that reality. Which teaches us that allocations of resources often need to go a single area to the future betterment of the group. But this needs to be done carefully and without corruption. If not done carefully and without corruption then the whole of the community suffers in their progression. Which leads to responsibilities with children. That in fact due to scarcity 'spreading your seed' and having many many kids creates problems for society. As they themselves have to compete over the scarce resources, and as there becomes more competition there is a higher chance of conflict.

Lastly you quoted a short paragraph from Wikipedia about the scientific method, for Christ's sake (no pun intended!), and then triumphantly declared that the scientific method as shown on Wikipedia doesn't tell you to harm anyone! I hate to say this, because I do agree with you, but you didn't prove anything. You made such a jump, with such a ridiculous starting place, it was completely nonsensical.

I'm making no jump at all. Thats the entire point. The Bible says stone people that get raped, of course the vast majority think this is absurd today but it also states various other things that people do not find absurd. The Bible is the structure of understanding God. It is a flawed structure even if people can create a better understanding out of it. The structure of science is simply the the scientific method. It offers not assumptions about reality, does not preach false morals and requires good practitioners to not only spend much time thinking about the information presented by it but to in fact try to prove the information provided by it wrong.

Emphatically no. The Golden Rule is not found in nature. The Golden Rule of Nature is: "Do unto others before they do unto you and screw you." The Golden Rule is an invention of humans. We subvert the natural order of the world when we use the Biblical Golden Rule.

Nor did I say it was. I said it was found in every single formal moral structure ever created. Buddhism, TCR, Christianity, Social Psychology, Taoism, Its in the I-Ching, and the found with the Hindus. It is not unique to Christianity. Not only that Social Psychology attempts to improve upon the Golden Rule, as I suppose did the I-Ching 5k+ years ago. Something that Christianity forgot. Which is to say that they understand that people are different and that treating someone the with the same details of how you would treat yourself is not necessarily the best way to treat others.

There is no way that empirical evidence can disprove false morals

Of course there is. The Old Testament gives us the moral that we should stone women who get raped. It is the 'right' thing to do. Yet we can empirically prove that this does not better society. Or to use something else, it is not moral to murder people. We know this empirically because societies that allow such actions do not progress, nor is the happiness of those individuals very high.

Science answers the "how". Religion answers the "why", or more specifically, "what is the meaning".

Christianity offers nothing of the sort. It proposes grand claims as to why we might be here attributing it to a supreme deity. But when you ask anything about the Why of the deity there is no answer. Why did God create?

Science looks for the Why and for now its answer is 'we don't know, but lets keep looking.' In fact the whole scientific method searches for the Why, and forces itself to go through the How to get there. I form hypothesis about Why something happens. I then test various aspects of How it might happen. If my hypothesis holds up I propose the How as theory to the Why.


Again I feel I need to re-iterate. Until you can define God, Christianity, and Religion this discussion is likely to spiral down to debate. At which point no one will learn anything of much use. I propose a few questions in each of my posts. The majority of which are not rhetorical. I ask them as I feel without the answer my understanding of your point is lacking. The only question in this one what is rhetorical is 'Why did God create?' Which is only rhetorical because I doubt anyone can answer.

[Snowflake]

Until you can define God, Christianity, and Religion this discussion is likely to spiral down to debate. At which point no one will learn anything of much use.

There is a difference between being Christ-like, and being Christian.

This is the main point. Jesus, Buddha, and other worshipped religious figures were not religious teachers. They were spiritual teachers.
However, spiritual teachings are not easy to understand and cannot be taken literally. They are meant to be felt and understood from within.

Jesus talks about "God," but this is not a belief in some supernatural creator.
"God," as Jesus puts it, simply means the ever-present truth of nature.

Still following?

Or is it already difficult to understand?

Believing in a mental conception of a "God" is a poor substitute for living god itself.
That's right, Jesus' teachings were not meant to be taken literally and rationalized by thought. They were meant to be lived, and felt.

Thus, after the mass population misunderstood his teachings and transformed them into a system of beliefs and laws known as a Religion, and the authors of the bible, alongside quoting Jesus' parables, added alot of original stories, which are all taken literally by its followers...

/A short history on the origin of religion

[Bluggo]

Jesus talks about "God," but this is not a belief in some supernatural creator.
"God," as Jesus puts it, simply means the ever-present truth of nature.

Still following?

No, unless you can provide substantial evidence for this interpretation.
I do not feel like hunting for quotes, but in all passages I can think of appear to strongly imply that Jesus believed in a personal, supernatural Creator - which, by the way, was perfectly in line with the religion and the culture of His people.

I do not really see any evidence for the kind of Pantheism you are suggesting in Hebraism or early Christianity, but then again I am not an expert...

[Shpow]

As the current thread of discussion seems to have died off, I'd like to bring up a new thought that's been bugging me today.

In various threads in N&A (most recently, the one on underage sexual assault offenders), it's been broadly agreed that criminal justice should primarily be reformative or rehabilitative, or at the very least a deterrent; very few accept that it is legitimate to inflict punishment for the sole purpose of taking vengeance, or causing suffering to people who deserve it.

With that in mind, I note that most Christians believe that there is some form of eternal punishment (i.e. Hell) for at least some people — depending on denomination, qualifications may include nonbelief (or, more properly, sin without salvation by faith), unrepentance of moral sin, or rejection of a direct revelation of God. Even those denominations that reject the idea of Hell are usually built around belief in God's mercy — and, since that word is rather defined by its opposite, there is nevertheless some supposition that God is initially motivated to punish people.

Now, I have already read a fair bit about the Problem of Hell, and I'm not immediately concerned with discussing whether God is justified in punishing people. Instead, my question is this: for what purpose would God intend to inflict punishment on any particular individual?

Hell is mainly for those people that commit mortal sins (serious sins, murder or blackmail, for example) and die without feeling sorry for doing something like that. But it's all very circumstantial, and as humans it's a little hard to envision. I mean, say a guy kills someone but is then shot by a passer-by. Instant kill, say. I'm sure that a being as perfect as God would give him the chance to access purgatory. Purgatory is there for purification and repent, it's a state for reforming, repent, rehabilitation. Then there are things like psychological complexes or mental cases, which also affect the person's destination in the afterlife.

But it's hard to say, isn't it?

[Zcorp]

There is a difference between being Christ-like, and being Christian.

Not everyone would agree with your distinction, but going off of yours. That still leaves the problem of Christianity.

I asked a Moch and Spacemilk a few posts back to define Christianity and gave them a a wiki quote and so other things. I proposed the interpretation of God being as you put it an ever present truth and asked if those people who believe that are still considered Christian.

The third post in this thread proposes the notion that people need to be Christ-like and believes that this should be the definition of Christians

The term christian isn't about dying on a cross, nor performing a sacrifice for God's children. By christian it is meant to take upon oneself the name of Christ. to try to be like him.

That all somehow fail at this should be no surprise. Nor that there are people who misuse the title who most certainly arn't trying to be like him.

And while some take this interpretation it is rare, most people who include Christian in their self-concept believe in a large part of the dogma as well, and often don't 'try to be Christ-like' so much as do what their church tells them. People become subject to group-think and gain the prejudices and aggression are associated. The philosophical idea of being Christ-like is not harmful. But is the same philosophical idea as being enlightened/self-aware/self-actualized/self-realized or other such terms.

The term Christian today is not talking about a striving for that ideal. It is much more frequently associated with a group-think that promotes ignorance and intolerance. For the individuals who are in search of becoming more Christ-like losing the word Christian to describe themselves is not really a big deal anyway. Jesus's teachings were not new philosophy they are found in just a variety of older beliefs and the Christ-like person should be striving to reach the concepts that Jesus and many others taught not to become Jesus. If the whole goal is to "take upon oneself the name of Christ" it is important to realize that this concept is not unique within Christian teachings. But once we start getting into what is unique within Western Religion's teachings we encounter a large variety of problems.

Additionally you propose a definition of God that is not common. While it is one I find to be most useful with the least about of ambiguity and other problems it is simply not a common definition. So my question is, why bother trying to change the more common definition God? It is just a word, make up another that is more fitting and that does not have the connotation and ambiguity that the word God does.

[TheGrammarBolshevik]

Hell is mainly for those people that commit mortal sins (serious sins, murder or blackmail, for example) and die without feeling sorry for doing something like that. But it's all very circumstantial, and as humans it's a little hard to envision. I mean, say a guy kills someone but is then shot by a passer-by. Instant kill, say. I'm sure that a being as perfect as God would give him the chance to access purgatory. Purgatory is there for purification and repent, it's a state for reforming, repent, rehabilitation. Then there are things like psychological complexes or mental cases, which also affect the person's destination in the afterlife.

You're bringing up a lot of concepts (mortal sin, perfect contrition, death in a state of grace, purgatory) that are specific to Roman Catholicism, but I don't think that your stance on repentance after death lines up with the Catholic theology:

1030. All who die in God's grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven.

...

1033. ... To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God's merciful love means remaining separated from him for ever by our own free choice. This state of definitive self- exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called "hell."

...

1035. The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, "eternal fire."

So, to accept the various doctrines you mentioned I think implies acceptance of the Catholic faith in particular; but, considering these quotes from the RCC itself, something about your theology of hell doesn't add up.

[DeathIsTheEnd]

Well first of all, this can apply to all Christian denominations, but in this paticular case espically Catholics.
Now most of us know how the ten commandments, of which one is "You shall not make for yourself an idol".
Catholics seem to very often place a lot of importance upon the Virgin Mary, and one recent example would be the "finding" of an image of her in a tree in Ireland. I was wondering whether this counts as idolisation, or is simply reverance?

[General_Norris]

While Catholics are often accused of worshiping images, in violation of the first commandment,[36] the Church says this is a misunderstanding. In the Church's opinion, "the honor paid to sacred images is a 'respectful veneration', not the adoration due to God alone"

Taken from Wikipedia here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Comman ... ommandment

[Zamfir]

Bit late to the party, are ye? This was one of the chief complaints in the reformation.

[Azrael]

Get thee to the Religion Thread.

[TheGrammarBolshevik]

The Catechism of the Catholic Church on idols: http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt3 ... ct2chpt1iv

I think the Church's position speaks for itself. Statues and images of saints are no more idols than the crucifix that symbolizes Christ.

EDIT: Importing a discussion from N&A.

Using this definition of superstition...

Superstition--A belief, practice, or rite irrationally maintained by ignorance of the laws of nature or by faith in magic or chance.

... where do you claim Catholicism falls? A belief irrationally maintained by ignorance of the laws of nature? No. Faith in magic? No. Faith in chance? No.
Both religion and superstition are beliefs. But they are beliefs in different things. You can argue that belief in the Christian God is of the same character as belief that the number 13 is unlucky, but one is religion and the other is superstition by the very definitions you quoted. The priest very reasonably didn't want one to turn into the other.

What distinguishes Catholicism (and other branches of Christianity) from magic? Various articles of faith (virgin birth, resurrection of Christ, miracles, transubstantiation, existence of God himself) involve a belief in the supernatural; what about these supernatural forces distinguishes them from mere magic?

[Oculus Vespertilionis]

Religion and magic are distinct things -- at least according to my Intro to Sociology class, which spent some serious time comparing the two. As such comparisons tend to do, this also involved classifying practices as "religion" or "magic", which might sometimes defy their normal classifications.
Some of the fundamental differences mentioned were:
1) Religion includes a concept of the sacred and the profane, while magic does not.
2) Religious rituals are characterized by their community nature; the practices are generally open. Magic rituals are characterizes by the esoteric and secret nature; the practices are generally closed.
3) Similar to #2, religions are observed by communities, while magical practices are observed only by initiated adherents.
... I'm sure there was more. But I think another important distinction as the terms are used in the modern age is a difference between a codified formula with a defined result, and an appeal to personality -- the difference between a spell and a prayer. In a spell, A + B + C --> D; you carry out the rituals and words and such and something relatively well-defined will result. In a prayer, you just ask Being X to make D happen. Now, maybe to ask Being X, you need to do A and say B (and the more there is to A and B, the more the prayer starts to resemble a spell). But a spell focuses on the process, while a prayer focuses on the subject being asked.