Makes sense; I think i’ll change to the ancient Egyptian religion where a man is judged at death by the lightness of his heart.
my real name
Nope, the people in Al Capone’s gang probably didn’t know the risks they were taking. God doesn’t hate those sent to Hell, God just refuses to save them if they refuse to save themselves.
Say you were standing in front of an onrushing vehicle. Now you have the power yourself to get out of the way, it isn’t my responsibility to push you out of the way. But that doesn’t mean I hate you. Your argument is highly spurious at this point, and the comparison simply daft. With one you are talking about organised crime a century ago, with the other you are talking about faith, which requires no proof.
I don’t use planes. Again, the comparison is spurious. The Bible isn’t intended as a manual for building aircraft.
But to answer your question more effectively, getting on a plane requires as much faith (that the plane works) as believing in God. You don’t know that the engineers in group A will be successful, you are simply relying (once again) on inductive reasoning to claim that they will be (or at least that they are more likely to be than group B).
Your defence of inductive reasoning is to appeal to inductive reasoning. This is circular, and as such doesn’t constitute a logical defence. Try again.
Hypothesis requires faith because it is a construct of language and requires symbolization and metaphor to activate meaning. Empirical experience, on the other hand, does not. The sensation of pain is not a meaningful event, it is a functional event, and its reality is not questionable by hypothesis.
Science is nothing more than the organisms practice of assimilating the environment, physically, before and beyond language and metaphor. It is therefore impossible to equate an allegorical practice, such as a religion, with an empircal experience. It does not matter what the scientist thinks an empirical observation means or proves in a hypothetical relationship. It requires no faith.
but scientific prediction does require faith.
there is nothing to empirically judge before the event.
the “scientific” claim that the ball will fall when dropped is a statement of things not seen. one believes the ball will fall, one has faith the ball will fall… there is no empirical evidence that the ball will fall…
-Imp
Prediction involves theory, it is a merging into the future with language. Experience happens now and has nothing to do with predictions.
Basically I’m agreeing, but classifying “scientific” as something independent of formulations and theories. Strict empirical experience. Kicking Berkeley’s rock.
The Bible is use to drive people crazy in a very particular manner. The goal is to make money for Christian preachers. They say donate money to God when they, of course, want it for themselves. This scam is quite effective. It is very seldom the case that anyone can be saved from this racket. This remains true no manner how nutty the reasons used to validate this Christian premise.
For the record let’s review how nutty the beliefs I understand you have from your prior post. You believe in a omnipotent God that can do anything he pleases. He will bring to Heaven all people that believe in him (no matter how vile and despicable) and he will stand by and consign to eternal torment those that do not believe in him (no matter how generous, thoughtful and kind they might be). The major difference between belief and non-belief obviously is the probability of payments into the coffers of the preachers.
Obviously if any person were to allow extreme torment to any kind, loving person for any period of time whatsoever (if that person could prevent that torment with ease) that would be a hateful action objectively no matter what the actual emotions. Given God’s asserted power it would be trivially easy to bring all kind, loving people to Heaven.
It seems that once someone has joined the army of the preposterous it becomes easy to believe things that are this preposterous. If any person were to treat you in such a hurtful manner you would instantly label that person’s actions as hateful. Somehow there is a pathological disconnect in the thought process when “God†is involved. A vile, hateful action when done by a person becomes acceptable when done by God???
I’m not sure, but I think you’re missing a question:
God is not a man – can He be judged as we judge men?
You are forgetting that our current topic is Biblical literalism. Yes there are many moderate and liberal Christians that interpret the Bible allegorically. However, we are now dealing with the meanace of Biblical literalists that imagine that they should tell us how to behave because the Bible tells them so. Literalism means that they think the Bible is a non-allegorical collection of facts and commands to be followed.
If we are allowed to use logic and reason we most certainly SHOULD judge the actions of “God” as we judge man. This is a personal god that communicates as a person and is said to have the feelings and emotions of a person.
The unspoken assumption of fundamentalist Christianity is one of an extreme, authoritarian tyrannical rule from God. The only rational response is one of protest. The only reason not to protest is fear based on quasi-hypnotic entrainment into this grotesque authoritarian fanasy world. As I have said, the God as described in the Bible is worse than some of the most notorious thugs of history.
Obviously most Christians are not fundamentalists and do not so believe. However, our topic is Biblical literalism and to discuss that we must read the Bible literally.
Somebody correct me if I’m wrong, weren’t the various books of the bible selected and pulled together rather arbitrarily by MERE HUMANS ex post facto?
and then even later some were ordered to be removed?
so aren’t all literalists in denial about the history of the bible?
I think the only way to learn anything from the bible is to read between the lines, and it might even then require a starting base of wisdom. that is, with things like for example genesis. jesus’ sayings are accessible enough. and then other parts of it should just be wholly discarded. ravings of lunatics.
You are a cynical dog if you think this is true, and a hypocrite.
If this were the only thing Christian ministers did I’d agree with you.
Prove it.
‘He’ perhaps not, but since that’s the easiest rhetoric to use, sure, why not.
Not entirely, it depends on whether one repents for the bad things one has done and prays to be saved. It isn’t really about the particular events of one’s life. As the the thoughtful and kind unbelievers - read Dante.
Are you trying to sound thick?
Have you been to a country other than the US?
God can do whatever God wants to do, this is why the universe is so darn unpredictable, God keeps changing the rules to keep scientists on their toes.
Nope. I’ve no idea what you are driving at here. One cannot be a bastard to everyone, donate money to the church and automatically be saved. That’s not how it works. That’s how it works on sitcoms.
Antonio, reading my posts without Nietzsche in mind, you are doomed to fail miserably in trying to understand. That’s exactly what you did. If you want to refute me on this, firstly read the Antichrist, then refute by quotation. As an example to demostrate your current incompetence in makeing an open minded discussion about bible, you asked: “how is bible is signature of irrationality?”… Have you read any meaningful book besides your holy moral codes?
Okay, speaking of the God of the Bible (NT too?), what did God ever do to you that you speak of Him this way? You DO owe everything you have and are to His mercy, you know. (Or is that, to you, only an expression of the philosophical God?)
Curious how Jesus himself said he spoke in parables yet mankind somehow still can’t figure this out and uses the literal argument to suit his own personal adgendas…
Obviously from the perspective of a scientific realist there is no God as described by the Bible at all. Therefor, “God†did not do anything whatsoever. The question from a realistic perspective should be “what did particular people do to me based on their illusions that the Bible was true?â€
I do not intend to answer that question in detail because those details are quite grotesque. However, you may presume that it was a mixture of extreme physical abuse and numerous threats of death.
I obviously owe nothing whatsoever to a non-existent God.
As to the asserted mercy, I view it as totally analogous to the mercy conveyed on every page of an Al-Queda training manual where they had written “Praise be to Allah the Merciful.†With mercy like that we should all be very afraid indeed.
Did you know that six of the Ten Commandments have death as the proscribed sanction for violation? Do you really think that death for mowing one’s lawn on Sunday is appropriate because of a “violation of the Sabbath?†That is what the Bible says.
Exodus 31:15 “…whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.â€
You are quite correct that the books of the Bible were selected after the fact in a manner that is quite open to challenge. In my opinion they blundered badly in the process by which selection was made.
The reject works were typically the Gnostic Christian writings that were vastly more sophisticated than the ones actually selected. The Gnostics felt that one could grow spiritually by acquiring wisdom. Jesus was seen as a very wise teacher.
The Gnostics felt that the material world was intrinsically sinful and that the path toward wisdom allowed one to grow beyond the sin of this world. Jesus became one that embodied this spiritual wisdom. The God of the Old Testament was the God of the material world and was thus sinful. The kindness of Jesus reflected growth away from this sinful God. Jesus became something like a Buddha figure in this teaching.
It is estimated that half of all Christians were Gnostic at this time. There was a war between Constantine and Licinius over this issue. Emperor Constantine wanted to put an end to this conflict. After he had conquered Licinius he convened a Council of Nicaea to put an end to this conflict. Unfortunately the non-Gnostics showed up first, decided that they had a quorum and voted for the Nicene Creed which asserted the preposterous proposition that Jesus always existed. The literal translation of the end of their creed from the Catholic Encyclopedia:
“Those who say: There was a time when He was not, and He was not before He was begotten; and that He was made our of nothing (ex ouk onton); or who maintain that He is of another hypostasis or another substance [than the Father], or that the Son of God is created, or mutable, or subject to change, [them] the Catholic Church anathematizes.â€
They were quite serious about the anathematizing. The odd thing is that those that were anathematized and sent into exile were quickly allowed to come back. Emperor Constantine was himself baptized by one of these Gnostics shortly before he died.
There is much more to this melodramatic story but this is enough for one post.
If you have enough evidence to support all this, you can be like Dan Brown and write a novel showing once more how stupid the Catholics were by keeping Gnosticism out of Christianity. It could even become a movie… I can see it now… Constantine on his deathbed, being baptized by a Gnostic…giving up Catholicism before death.
This would result in PoR’s egg being cracked…
Well yes I have been to numerous other countries. More importantly I read widely and think about how we might create a caring world that nurture positive outcomes for the whole of humanity.
Of course, your question is an ad hominem attack intended to imply that I am not one that had ever gone to other countries. It is but one of many such attacks in your post.
I will not be replying in kind. However, I will point out that such attacks constitute their own punishment. You have made it clear that you are one that attacks others in this manner and at this point there is nothing you can do to remove the post that makes this obvious.
The one thing that is most disappointing about Christianity is that Jesus did have much to say about treating others ethically but as you have proven those messages from Jesus make no net difference to those that call themselves Christians.
As a humanist I would like to suggest an experiment. With your next post approach it with some kindness in your intentions and compare it with how you felt with your last one.
Thank you for your kind words. However, I am nowhere near as good a writer as Dan Brown. I sincerely doubt that I could attract nearly the attention of his book. I am also vastly more careful in any scholarship that I might bring to a book. Unfortunately, a careful presentation of the truth would further reduce any audience that I might have.
The only thing it give me is somewhat interesting information to engage other people that charmed by the world of ideas.
I laughed for about 30 seconds when I read this. Surely no-one claims to be a humanist anymore?
Tell me, on what basis do you develop your notion of the human? Have you met everyone on the planet? Are you in any kind of position whatsoever to say anything general about the human condition? How many people have you met in your life? 50,000? 250,000? Certainly not enough.
I have no desire to be kind to someone who seeks to discredit all Christian belief on the basis of Biblical imperfections. This is the sort of generalised nonsensical attack that has become very fashionable in these secular times.
Demonstrate yourself worthy of kindness and you will receive it. That’s a promise.