The Faith & Religion mega Thread

Hi blue,

Welcome back after your break. Where you been? I suppose focusing on more important results. Did you succeed? Betcha not.

assume or pretend that theodicy* is subject to human jurisdiction

What do you mean by "pretend"? It is these casually demeaning words that make for a bitter discussion. Could it be that they stem from a blithe ignorance and an attitude of unverified superiority?

The major point being that you have defined the goal post by implying that whatever you say is theodicy and so not subject to human jurisdiction.

All the best.

OK

Thought is sometimes superior to thought; not person to person.

Originally Posted by TobiSGD Do you mean that gravity didn't work before it was discovered? It was a law of physics long time before anyone has written it.

Not that old chestnut....

Gravity is a name that we give to an exceptionally consistent tendancy observed in objects that have what we choose to call mass to move in a highly predictable manner. So predictable that we can calculate the position of masses orbitting around the sun along side us centuries into the future with high reliability.

Because of this extreme predictability we assign this to a category of knowledge known as "laws". Like all laws this written description of our observations is a human construct.

This tendancy we observe has as far as we can tell from the evidence, always been there, for any definition of always that has any human relevance. The "law" as a human constructed description existed only once it was written down.

The map is not the territory.

Originally Posted by bluegospel Food for thought: fundamentally, isn't everything a satellite, or a member of a satellite? From the electron, to the subatomic particles, to the atom itself, and to the galaxies?

You could make that argument, as an analogy in a science book for children.

The sun might be thought of as an atomic bond.

No, not even in a science book for children. The forces operating are in no way the same. The things being operated on are in no way the same.

Just no.

"It was shot down though wasn't it?"

I love it when people make statements like this. Is shows a lack of understanding of what science is that must have to be carefully cherished to survive in the modern world.

Originally Posted by AnanthaP The major point being that you have defined the goal post by implying that whatever you say is theodicy and so not subject to human jurisdiction.

Nope. The only thing implied is what's obvious in nature and Scripture, precisely what intimates "pretense" in both skeptics and opponents of Christian faith.

On the other hand, Christ did say, "for they do not know what they do." So I'm at fault if some here really do miss the obvious, in which case they're not anti-God, just dumb lost sheep, like I was at one time.

Originally Posted by bluegospel So I'm at fault if some here really do miss the obvious, in which case they're not anti-God, just dumb lost sheep, like I was at one time.

I could say the same, at one time I was a dumb lost sheep. Then I became an Atheist.

Christ did say, "for they do not know what they do."

Actually, that is what Luke wrote some decades after Christs death, assembled to a canon of books by a Roman for political reasons centuries later, translated to English (correctly or not). You can't be sure that Jesus ever actually said that. Your scripture isn't as obvious as you might think.

Originally Posted by TobiSGD I could say the same, at one time I was a dumb lost sheep. Then I became an Atheist. Actually, that is what Luke wrote some decades after Christs death, assembled to a canon of books by a Roman for political reasons centuries later, translated to English (correctly or not). You can't be sure that Jesus ever actually said that. Your scripture isn't as obvious as you might think.

Perfect example of how human "logic" is subject to human preference.

... I'm at fault if some here really do miss the obvious, in which case they're not anti-God, just dumb lost sheep, like I was at one time.

There you go again. Casually insulting and talking down to people.

Whatever you believe may be obvious to you but if it because it is written in a book (the christian scriptures - edition not specified) to be seen as real, then it has to be straight-jacketed, hidebound and giving no room for sane discussion. It just leads to a type of zealotry that ends in bloodshed.

Take the word theodicy. It should be obvious to you that if you require the the presence of evil to justify divine providence - as theodicy means - then divine providence was created after evil and as such isn't primary in any scheme.

OK

Originally Posted by bluegospel Perfect example of how human "logic" is subject to human preference.

...and this is a perfect example of how you can't apply logic.

TobiSGD is stating historical fact. This was written down long ago, and there were DATES on the things that were written. This isn't up for debate...it is fact. Just SAYING "No! They were written earlier, and if you say different, you're applying human preference, see!??!", is wrong. This is much like disputing the fact that there were people around far earlier than Biblical times....there were.

The church also VOTED on which things to keep in the bible, and which to leave out...this is also historical fact, and is verifiable. Since keeping the church in power and money was important, such things were heavily favored. Ask yourself: why were priests forbidden to marry? Answer: if they were married and they died, their wives would get the property and money. So, in order to be a 'real' man-of-god, they were forced to be unmarried (which goes AGAINST the bible, doesn't it?? "Be fruitful and multiply", right?). The church then increased its power and wealth. Can't have people just believing in God without the church, can you?

Believing in God is one thing...ignoring all of history, written records, and basic thought processes are another. Are you really so dumb as to think that there weren't any political/power games being played centuries ago? Do you really think that (given the social/educational realities of the time), that the small minority of folks IN power, wouldn't do things to KEEP and EXPAND that power? Didn't the church have such lovely things like the inquisition? How about telling folks that unless they OBEYED the church blindly, that the church could keep them from God and heaven??

Look things up...read a history book. These things (and more) are VERY well documented and verified. Denying them is asinine.

Again, I will ask you why you persist here? We've had plenty of other trolls to deal with in your absence.

I don't pretend to be a scholar in the histories behind the various translations of Scripture over the years. I have however done my due diligence and at some point, unless you aim at mastering that one discipline, you have to use either intuition or in some cases unfortunately, your biases. I've studied enough to know that there are numerous discrepancies between the numerous translations which should be expected, and that both sides invariably give good reason for their positions. I've studied enough to be firmly confident in the integrity of most translations. 60 or 70 years is a reasonable amount of time to study the facts, assemble the gospels and publish them, in my opinion.

(blink...)

Did the entire sentiment expressed in 1 Corinthians chapter 8 somehow escape you?

Therefore, if what I eat causes my brother to fall into sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause him to fall.

The writer of this phrase recognized that in the big-picture this "hugely important issue concerning meat" was not about meat at all. It was about how other people reacted to it ... and, specifically, about the consequences to them of their reaction.

"It's not about you ... it's about them!"

"The true point" of the matter is not whether-or-not you are "absolutely right" ... because there is no "absolutely" right. Or wrong. (And if there is, it don't matter, 'cuz the damage has been done.)

We're not deities. We're mortals. Here today, gone tomorrow. (Sux...) Throw away your self-pious sense of "rightness" and focus on the consequences of whatever it is that you say or do. Nobody gave you an Endless Free-Games Token to the Absolute Truth Machine. It is better to give-up the territory, knowing in your own heart that you have no reason to do it, if by doing so "you will not cause him to fall." Because, in the larger scheme of things, it is less important that "you are or are-not 'right'" than, as a consequence, "he fell." Concede the territory, graciously and quickly, and withdraw from the field.

There's only one "you," but there might be many "he's." Take your "rightness" and suck-it-up. What good does it do you to have, in your own eyes, "won the battle," if in Someone Else's eyes ... or, what t'hell, in the other guy's (why not?) ... you "lost the war?" There are four (binary) possibilities here: (you | he) is (right | wrong). Two bits; four possibilities. And if the outcome is that the other-guy got tossed off the wagon ... all four of those possibilities suck. There's a one-in-four chance that the actual situation is as you think it is, but a four-in-four chance that the other guy got derailed because of y-o-u.

There's much wisdom in what you say but I think some of it is misplaced. I also think there's a community of thinking people disengaged from thoughtless Christians. Paul was speaking abought mature Christians inadvertently misleading immature Christians by their otherwise lawful actions. If somebody resents God, I doubt engaging him in discussion will cause sin. It is true the Apostle wrote what you say. He also writes, "we demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God". If my forwardness provokes some to curse God they already cursed him in their heart. I suspect that you appeal as you do in part that I might shrink back and not stir the waters yet again.

Originally Posted by bluegospel I don't pretend to be a scholar in the histories behind the various translations of Scripture over the years. I have however done my due diligence and at some point, unless you aim at mastering that one discipline, you have to use either intuition or in some cases unfortunately, your biases. I've studied enough to know that there are numerous discrepancies between the numerous translations which should be expected, and that both sides invariably give good reason for their positions. I've studied enough to be firmly confident in the integrity of most translations. 60 or 70 years is a reasonable amount of time to study the facts, assemble the gospels and publish them, in my opinion.

Sorry, but that statement in and of itself, tells us that you have NOT done any sort of research or due-diligence. I'm not talking about translation errors (of which there are MANY); I'm talking about the fact that most of the bible was written a VERY long time after the events took place.

The earliest book in the new testament was written from 45 to 60 years AFTER things took place. Again, are you dumb enough to think that a story (especially one of that magnitude?), wouldn't change ANY before it was written down? The first real compilation took place more than a century after that. And again, the bible was VOTED ON by the church. To put it even more simply, since you ignore that bit...they DECIDED what would go in and what to leave out. Ever ask yourself why there's nothing about Jesus until he's in his 30's, right before his death? His birth was covered...then nothing else until then. Ever read or even CONSIDER the Gnostic gospels?? Probably not...since the church deems them unworthy. And why? Such 'heresy' as the Gospel of Mary? The Gospel of Judas? How about the fact that such teachings said in plain language, that God dwells within us, and that the church wasn't needed to find him? No, no...can't have that, can we??

Again, you ignore what was said, and try to spin it, rather than actually (and rationally), discussing things. This, again, puts you firmly in the 'troll' classification.

Originally Posted by bluegospel There's much wisdom in what you say but I think some of it is misplaced. I also think there's a community of thinking people disengaged from thoughtless Christians. Paul was speaking about mature Christians inadvertently misleading immature Christians by their otherwise lawful actions. If somebody resents God, I doubt engaging him in discussion will cause sin. It is true the Apostle wrote what you say. He also writes, "we demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God". If my forwardness provokes some to curse God they already cursed him in their heart. I suspect that you appeal as you do in part that I might shrink back and not stir the waters yet again.

As for me, I will take it literally: I can "sin against" my brother. That's where my concern ends ... if they "curse God," that's God's issue not mine. In the end, "he's not my kid." I don't know anyone else's heart and have no ability to peer into it. I'm just as blind as the next guy, and I know it. If I hear something go "crunch" I won't be able to see why, but I know enough to avoid anything that might "go crunch" and that is enough.

Now ... there are a couple of books that those in this discussion might be interested in. Paul Johnson's A History of Christianity, which undertakes to be a historical narrative of the (Catholic ...) church from its beginnings to the late 20th century. Another pair of books, a bit more challenging, are Mythmaker, and The Search for the Historical Jesus.

Now, my point-of-view on this (for whatever it may be worth) is that I have no intention of "leaning upon my own understanding," but I do want to know everything that I can about where a religion actually comes from, how the book in my hand (whether it be the Bible or the Q'Oran or the Baghivad Gita, actually came to come to me in its present form. I like to look at esoteric fringes, like the Jewish Kaballah (now there's some truly esoteric stuff!) and the many books ... including many of the competitors to (!!) the Revelation of (sic...) St. John that didn't make the cut. (Who made "the cut," when and why? Quite an interesting story, that.) Yup, I find myself singing the line sung by Judas in "Jesus Christ Superstar": "I only wanna know."

And I'll never apologize for "wanting to know." You gave me this brain ... I'm gonna use it while I've got it, and I suspect that You would be disappointed if I didn't.

And then, on top of all that, when that "still, small voice" speaks up, I drop everything and listen. Just as it was in that very first few chapters of The Book of Genesis: "In the cool of the evening, at the close of the day ..."

"Something that I do makes something 'go crunch?'" Oops, me bad. I think somebody's opinions are a sack of but I can sense that an argument would only hurt him ... I keep my silence. ("After all, I'm blind, and he's blind too. How can any of us presume to say that we have the faintest notion of what an elephant is?") In an uncomfortably-short number of years hence, we'll have all the time in the universe to debrief one another over a cup of heavenly mead in-between harp lessons, or it won't matter because I'm too busy shoveling coal to keep "the lucky folks upstairs" nice 'n toasty.