The Faith & Religion mega Thread

Originally Posted by oskar My bible (new world translation - german) phrases it a bit differently. Anyhow: But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. I thought that sentence made it rather clear. Well, I suppose you could go out and mix with the hypocrites.

Makes it clear that there's something ELSE before it,
hence the BUT, which indicates that what it's targeted
at ... you're not very good with language(s), really.
Just let it go...

Originally Posted by oskar The point is he did not explicitly tell you to go to church. And if you remember, I was answering to the guy who said that everyone who believes should go to the church regularly.

Heb 10:24,25

24 And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works:
25 Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.

And try to think of it as a whole, don't pick out individual
sentences and build a theory on that.


Cheers,
Tink

That's what you call explicit? I was thinking more in the lines of. "Make me buildings as tall and expensive as you possibly can, make a man dressed like a confused rockstar your lecturer, and meet there every Sunday and on special holidays to pray to me... and by the way - remember that part about not forsaking your assemblies... well, strike that."

That would be explicit. But I stand by what I said. All-powerful beings should not have to write books. They could do it any way they wanted, right? - why do they resort to the technology available to man at any given time, and why doesn't he know any more than man at any given time? And why is his morality basically the same as it was at the time he dictated to the prophets.

Originally Posted by oskar That would be explicit. But I stand by what I said. All-powerful beings should not have to write books. They could do it any way they wanted, right? - why do they resort to the technology available to man at any given time, and why doesn't he know any more than man at any given time? And why is his morality basically the same as it was at the time he dictated to the prophets.

Given no one wishes to listen to logic...

God had a book written so dumb people like you who complained about it 2,000 years later could read the damn thing. Its people like you that could hear God speaking through the freaking clouds and still believe He doesn't exist.

Why is that? I believe everything I see. I believe that there is a desk in front of me, I believe in my window, in the tree behind it. If god would get off his lazy ass, and actually make himself visible for once, I would believe that he's there... what makes you think I won't?

Originally Posted by oskar That's what you call explicit? I was thinking more in the lines of. "Make me buildings as tall and expensive as you possibly can, make a man dressed like a confused rockstar your lecturer, and meet there every Sunday and on special holidays to pray to me... and by the way - remember that part about not forsaking your assemblies... well, strike that."

Matey ... I don't recall having used the word 'explicit';
and I don't recall the argument being about buildings.
You were talking about not attending church.

We were talking about the church, which is the community
of believers. The fact that the more established churches
are putting up huge (and in the Catholic Baroque tradition
very pompous) buildings has little to do with the NT.

I can't say anything about the dress-code of pastors in
Austria (probably a good thing listening to your ramble),
but appearance has little to do with the spirit.

Originally Posted by oskar That would be explicit. But I stand by what I said. All-powerful beings should not have to write books. They could do it any way they wanted, right? - why do they resort to the technology available to man at any given time,

Because obviously even a technique used 3000 years ago
still goes way over your head today. What's the point of
using something more advanced? That would just confuse
you more.

and why doesn't he know any more than man at any given time?

He does. He just chose to communicate in means we can
handle - well, some of us; there seem to be Austrian
exceptions to this :D

And why is his morality basically the same as it was at the time he dictated to the prophets.

Because the basic human needs are covered by it today as
they were then. There's an amazing book by Wolfgang Wickler
available, "Die Biologie der 10 Gebote", that I can highly
recommend :} ... Wickler is an ethologist, btw, not a theologian.



Cheers,
Tink

All-powerful beings should not have to write books.

So when did God write the Bible? You may need to check up on your sources there.

why do they resort to the technology available to man at any given time, and why doesn't he know any more than man at any given time?

What makes you think that God doesn't know more than man at any given time? Does anyone (fully) understand infinity? That doesn't mean that there is no such thing as infinity, right? That's the whole point. It's people who wrote the books and being human, they were limited to what they could understand at the time just as we are today. That is why interpretation of the Bible is not static but evolves over time. Let's be very clear about this: realities do not depend on our perceiving them. If they did, then the back of the moon wouldn't have existed until we developed the means to explore space.

I believe everything I see.

That is fine. It also means that you are in a very poor situation to embrace science. Can you see gravity? Yes, you can see apples falling off trees but that is not gravity, those would be the effects of gravity. As David Hume realized: "if I see a billiard ball rolling off after being hit by another one, how do I know that it does so because it was hit by the other one? All I can see is one ball hitting another one and then the second one starts moving. So clearly scientific laws like causality do not exist."
Then Kant responded: "Yes, Hume is absolutely right, empiricism makes it impossible to believe in scientific laws as external realities. But I also say that Hume missed one vital thing: scientific laws are not external but mental realities. They are innate and constitute a filter that we impose on reality whether we know it or not. That is why we all perceive causality in the world even though it does not have any physical existence. Similarly, it explains how we arrive at numbers. For how could we count anything in the world unless we already possess some unit that enables us to do so? Surely no one has ever run across a bunch of ones or sevens in the wild that by some deductive magic made us familiar with the meaning of ones and sevens?" I think that this is more or less what you were hinting at when you suggested that all knowledge is just "construction". More or less, because construction implies a measure of randomness that is incompatible with Kant's conception.
Anyway, if we are going to assume that the conditions of science are mental, why would it be absurd to say that the basis of faith has a similar status: a mental reality that does not flow from the external world but that precedes and colours it? Of course one could object that unlike scientific laws, a sense of God is not universal. Two problems, though. One: acceptance of scientific laws is hardly as universal as a little knowledge of history or exotic cultures will testify (so far Kant). Two: does a sense of the divine really need to be universal? Certain protestants will tell you, no, it needn't. God isn't under any obligation whatsoever to reveal Himself (Herself? Itself?) to all. Whoever finds God does so because it was destined to happen. Maybe they were born with the right genes (or the wrong ones depending on your conviction).

Originally Posted by jay73 Whoever finds God does so because it was destined to happen. Maybe they were born with the right genes (or the wrong ones depending on your conviction).

Agreed. Reminds me of Matthew 20:16 (King James Version)

So the last shall be first, and the first last: for many be called, but few chosen.

Oskar, how about we leave this "argument" at this.

If you are right, and I have lived a Godly life, and just die, then I'm fine. If I am right, and God exists, you are screwed. See the difference?

Originally Posted by Tinkster Because obviously even a technique used 3000 years ago still goes way over your head today. What's the point of using something more advanced? That would just confuse you more.

Worst-sidestep-ever.

Because the basic human needs are covered by it today as they were then. There's an amazing book by Wolfgang Wickler available, "Die Biologie der 10 Gebote", that I can highly recommend :} ... Wickler is an ethologist, btw, not a theologian.

So genocide and prosecution of nonebelievers, slavery (Exodus 21) and bigotry met the basic human needs today, and in the past? Or are all those parts I didn't get? Didn't god wipe the earth of all people because they didn't sacrifice to him anymore? Didn't he say that a child should be stoned if he isn't obedient to his parents? (Deut.21:18-21)

Why do you think it is necessary to insult me in every second sentence. I'm not insulting you. If you think I got something wrong - correct me. But attacking me personally only makes you look like a yerk... it doesn't make your point any more convincing.

Originally Posted by Jay73 So when did God write the Bible? You may need to check up on your sources there.

Well, I think it's widely accepted that it's god's word or god-approved. I don't know the passages. Ask the bible-heads.

What makes you think that God doesn't know more than man at any given time?

Wow... we're finally getting somewhere.
I don't think he does either!

Seriously though... all-knowing, all-powerfull... devine plan... creator of the universe... I think the general understanding is that he does know more than your average Joe.

That is fine. It also means that you are in a very poor situation to embrace science. Can you see gravity? Yes, you can see apples falling off trees but that is not gravity, those would be the effects of gravity. As David Hume realized: "if I see a billiard ball rolling off after being hit by another one, how do I know that it does so because it was hit by the other one? All I can see is one ball hitting another one and then the second one starts moving. So clearly scientific laws like causality do not exist."

Do I really have to spell everything out for you. Everything that has an effect on matter is something I would say I "see", even if it's just the effect I see. I don't see god having any effect on anything. I don't understand the billiard ball thing. It's basic action-reaction. I don't see the problem... Causality is not just a mind game, it can be tested, you can predict things... I honestly don't see the connection.

---responding to the rest---

While physics and mathematics are not universally understood, they can always be tested. You can use them to predict things. I don't see a connection.

Originally Posted by phantom_cyph Oskar, how about we leave this "argument" at this. If you are right, and I have lived a Godly life, and just die, then I'm fine. If I am right, and God exists, you are screwed. See the difference?

You have no idea what the Mayan Gods will do to you if you don't worship them.
Eternal flames my ass.
If I were to choose a god that I do not want to piss off, it wouldn't be Jehovah. No disrespect though - I think he has the highest bodycount.

Because obviously even a technique used 3000 years ago still goes way over your head today. What's the point of using something more advanced? That would just confuse you more.

The following are the ROYAL versions easily found. Source

New International Version
New American Standard Bible
The Message
Amplified Bible
New Living Translation
King James Version
English Standard Version
Contemporary English Version
New King James Version
New Century Version
21st Century King James Version
American Standard Version
Young's Literal Translation
Darby Translation
New Life Version
Holman Christian Standard Bible
New International Reader's Version
Wycliffe New Testament
Worldwide English (New Testament)
New International Version - UK
Today's New International Version

Originally Posted by fhleung The following are the ROYAL versions easily found. Source New International Version New American Standard Bible The Message Amplified Bible New Living Translation King James Version English Standard Version Contemporary English Version New King James Version New Century Version 21st Century King James Version American Standard Version Young's Literal Translation Darby Translation New Life Version Holman Christian Standard Bible New International Reader's Version Wycliffe New Testament Worldwide English (New Testament) New International Version - UK Today's New International Version

I'm not sure I understand what this list has to do with my post, but
thank you anyway :}



Cheers,
Tink

You have no idea what the Mayan Gods will do to you if you don't worship them.

Does it matter? The Mayan Gods, assuming that they exist, are morally and intellectually inferior to the kind of God who lies at the heart of monotheism. Whatever is divided is inferior to what is one and self-sufficient. To put it in scientific terms: if you get to choose between either a disparate set of laws that each declare a bit or one universal law that explains it all, you would most probably choose the latter.

Eternal flames my ass.

Check your grammar, you should use "eternally"

No, seriously, the whole subject of the afterlife is a lot more complex than you are implying. As said before, you haven't got a clue what you are talking about until you understand the Neoplatonic underpinnings of early Christian theology. Not to mention that the afterlife is not essential to Christianity. Look up the meaning of christian mortalism some day.

God created Man, Man created Religion, and things have been screwed up ever since.

Does it matter? The Mayan Gods, assuming that they exist, are morally and intellectually inferior to the kind of God who lies at the heart of monotheism.

The Mayan Book of the Dead does not really deal with moral lessons.

As said before, you haven't got a clue what you are talking about until you understand the Neoplatonic underpinnings of early Christian theology.

OF COURSE!
How could I ignore the Neoplatonic underpinnings of early Christianity. I feel like such a fool.