View Single Post
Old 04-15-2008, 05:43 PM   #48
Jvstice
Junior Member
 
Jvstice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 382
Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
That's fine however it does not address the question. If some people experience "miraculous" cures and those "miraculous" cures are the direct intervention of god, then why does god not intervene to replace missing limbs? Your points are good, however they have absolutely nothing to do with the question.
God's not being concerned with all suffering is an answer for a good bit of it, but you're right that it isn't a direct answer, because there are a number of people that have faith and have certain kinds of illnesses that have never been observed and recorded as having been cured. And you're right. There is no proof that they don't hope in vain that I can drag out and show you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
And I never said that *you* did.
Since faith is a personal matter, I'm not going to be drawn into defending ideas that I don't personally believe are true, regardless of who holds to the idea. I'll confess to being somewhat a Calvinist in my interpretation of Christianity, so the idea that God's already decided that He doesn't love some people, but universally calls all His children to love every person that God has created is an idea I've had to reconcile to long ago.

But that is a bit of a dodge, because there are too many people to be dismissed that suffer greatly and still have hope of meaning to be found in the afterlife, and lumping the people in as all one and the same doesn't entirely address this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
And I agree. However, since modern judeo-christian theology tends to argue that god is omnibenevolent, these points tend to create a problem for that myth. Within the scope of this belief, the question is legitimate and your response is rather unrelated.
Who argues that? It's certainly not something I've given any credence to since I was a teen.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
Are we at match point yet?
I wonder
Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
Sorry, this point is rather important, so I'm not going to be able let you squirm on this one: Is the bible the word of god or the word of man? Please read John 1:1 before responding.
All in all as it was originally given, I live my life as though it was the word of God. It has been corrupted by men though, with translator errors, changing definitions of words as languages evolve, and cultural context that the original hearers of a message have that doesn't get passed on to later hearers.

I've considered the possibilities both ways, and I hedge in the direction of it may not be perfect, but it's the best we have, and I choose to live my life depending on what has worked for me. I know that view would not make me popular in any major denomination.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
"not using a tool for more than it's purpose". "The purpose of the bible is to illustrate what relationship human being and god look like and to serve as a call to faith". First, let's please recognize that this is *your* interpretation. It's not bad, or wrong, or evil, in fact in many ways I'm sure it's fine, however it is still the equivalent of an opinion (e.g. not a fact). Second, if the purpose of the bible is to lay out "the ground rules" set forth by our perfect creator, then why does it contain so much bad information (as pointed out by the author). I'm afraid that you can't have it both ways.
Well if you're trying to convince me that "I'm" wrong (which is the entire point of this thread from what I can see) you'll have to deal with this point of view at some point, because it's central to how I understand my faith. As to how fundamentalists think, every religion has them, and I refuse to take the blame for the ones that claim to be affiliated with my religion. A lot of the stuff they spout I find embarassing and doing a major disservice to what I hold sacred.

As to your second point, the New Testament contains bad information about how to live a life? That's essentially what ground rules are. I mean, you've got idiots that try to go out and legislate obscure points of bible poetry into the education system or legislate morality, but that has nothing to do with following the ground rules or not. That's just people getting worked up about making non Christians act like Christians (thus precluding the possibility that they'd ever actually want to be a Christian by being so militant over trivial stuff) so they don't have to deal with the hypocrisy in their own lives. That has nothing to do with the "ground rules," other than by negative example.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
So if god had a very good reason for allowing/promoting slavery then why isn't the practice commonly accepted today? You see how this kinda fluffy thinking doesn't hold up to scrutiny?
It's still commonly practiced in much of the world. There is a widespread and growing sex slave industry. Additionally, in developing nations, economic conditions are bad enough that the same work gets done in the same miserable conditions without calling it slavery much of the times. There are a lot of people still who see sweatshops as a step up from how they have to live.

And you're right. It doesn't make it okay, but it's still present and modern ideas haven't really gotten rid of it. Just driven it "underground." Not saying that it shouldn't be stigmatized, but if it was so terrible when it was legal in much of the ancient world, what's made it less so now that it's illegal in much of the world and still goes on?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
So people don't need to be intellectually honest or take responsibility for their own thinking? Sorry, not buying that one. Participation is not mandatory.
As much as you attempt to use the socratic method to lay traps for people who haven't thought about their faith, of course you would say this. Believe it or not, I agree that self consistency of a world view is important.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
And once more the author's point strikes home. I really do get that you, personally, don't feel the need for their to be evidence, but that has absolutely nothing to do with the question: why isn't there any?
Personally I don't need other than what my own experiences in life tell me. You'd never get to the same point in life as I have, having not lived the same life, so there really is no point in debating how I see things.

Q: How do you know who your daddy is?
A: Your mom told you.

Do you feel the need to run out and get this tested? Most people are happy enough to accept their family relationships are what their family tells them and not dig deeper demanding genetic tests. What would you find that would change what was or was not already true anyway? How would this make your life more complete?

I've considered the possibility that I'm right. I've also considered the possibilty that I'm wrong. I think Vicktor Frankl had it right.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
Fair enough.

Have you seen the movie No Country For Old Men? There's a scene where the antagonist is in a gas station purchasing Corn Nuts or something of the like. The cashier says something that makes him upset, so he pulls out a quarter, flips it, and then insists that the cashier call heads or tails. The scene is long and I won't try to recreate all the dialog for you, but the point that the audience gets but the cashier doesn't is that if the cashier call it wrong, the antagonist is going to kill him.

The fact that he is going to kill him has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the cashier want to die, wants to call either heads or tails, or even cares about calling it correctly. Similarly, whether *you* feel a physical appearance is "owed" to you or not is completely irrelevant to the fact that he has not. Saying "I don't feel that Jesus owes me a cameo" is the equivalent of the cashier in the scene babbling on about why he's being asked to call it: it doesn't change reality/answer the question.
True. Reality exists. The presence or absence of a higher power doesn't depend on my belief or nonbelief in that higher power's existence.

Something I've already considered, and is central to everything you've tried to say. You believe I'll look at my beliefs at this point and conclude that it doesnt matter what I believe, and conclude you're right. Actually the opposite is true. I look at my life and beliefs, and conclude that life such as you advocate would be largely meaningless. Overall I see a downward quality of life (not in terms of comforts, but if you are familiar with Frankl, you'll know what I mean) if I started living like you were correct instead of what I believe now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
To the second part of your point, Muslims will tell you that if you don't accept Islam then you won't please god either. Is it similarly wise to blindly accept that calling as well? You have just as much evidence for their version of god and the christian one, so what criteria are you using for your decision. Also, are you prepared to accept the consequences of making the wrong choice? Might want to think about it.
Well I don't pray towards mecca, I do eat pig (though rarely), I don't believe that Mohammad spoke for God, and I haven't ever done Ramadan. They probably wouldn't be too thrilled with my attachment to the belief in the trinity. Otherwise, I live a life that most muslims would consider me to have lived decently, and their religion does make provision for modern Christians having been "misled" by the early apostles, so that God doesn't judge us harshly for that in their own belief system.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
That's probably true, but once again, we've completely skirted anything that might pass for an answer. What we do have is an elaborate mental gymnastics plan for how we're going to get out of having to answer the question, which is the point the author was trying to address with his video.
Personally, I found much of the video irrelevant to my actual point of view because it tries to punch a hole in people's beliefs in an omnibenevolent god (which I don't believe in. God does play favorites both in terms of physical benefits and salvation according to his own word, and the beneficiaries of one often are not the beneficiaries of the other, often sitting aside and watching as small children suffer, or tortured, and die.) and goes from assuming that the audience will be so shocked by the audacity of saying that people suffer and there are prayers that aren't answered that they'll happily accept the solution the maker of the video offers to the viewers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
Interesting conjecture. I don't think I've ever heard anyone propose that the eucharist was concieved as an attempt to "separate the men from the boys" before. Too bad Darth InSidious doesn't roam these parts; I'm sure he'd have a field day with that one.
Well references in the Bible say that the early Christian church were accused of canibalism as the Bible was still being written. It does point to a lot of people contemporary to that time taking Jesus' words at face value and running with the literal interpretation, since there's nothing else I could think in any interpretation of Christianity that could be interpreted as condoning canabalism.

And it would have fit with their purposes. Attracting people that were going into it with the expectation that it would be hard. Secret societies under the penalty of death would want some method of making sure that only those that weren't going to spill their guts about something disasterous to the Romans were ever given enough information to potentially be dangerous.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
This doesn't address the point: if christian marriage is somehow superior to some other flavor of marriage or even civil union, then why isn't this demonstrated in divorce rates? The question isn't going to change no matter how much we try to avoid it or put it off with responses that aren't related.
Not in terms of durability obviously. Simply in the matter that a Christian marriage a gift from God and something more to be thankful for a show of trust from God in return for. Not that the marriage is likelier to perform better if people take it for granted than any other marriage, or that the people that get into them have it made or anything.


"If force is the game, the murderer wins over the pickpocket." Ayn Rand

"Justice is the midpoint between being treated unjustly, and treating others unjustly." Aristotle

Last edited by Jvstice; 04-15-2008 at 07:16 PM.
Jvstice is offline   you may: quote & reply,