Poll
Question:
How often do you attend some religious service?
Option 1: Weekly
votes: 4
Option 2: At least once a month
votes: 5
Option 3: For special occasions, i.e Easter
votes: 13
Option 4: No church attendance
votes: 48
Option 5: Jaron will be sustained by the Quorum of Twelve
votes: 4
I was just curious. A part of being closer to my roommate and living with his family is church on sundays, and it is nostalgic for me. I approve of faith, but regret I can't in good conscience adhere to it myself. Even so, there is much to recommend for the experience, and it occurred to me this is likely a rather irreligious segment of the population.
Nope. Not my bag.
When I do drag my ass to church I invariably feel good about it.
Sadly I rarely do it. :(
Afraid i'll burst into flames if enter holy site, so never.
Quote from: katmai on May 06, 2012, 06:28:49 PM
Afraid i'll burst into flames if enter holy site, so never.
I have the same fear. I survived going into a Protestant church last year. I'm still scared of the Roman Catholic churches.
Voted 'never'. After we moved down here Princesca used to drag me to her family's church for special events like Christmas Eve, Easter, etc. but fortunately we stopped doing that a few years ago. Their church is one of those places where most of the sermons are "Why 'x' is/are evil and will not be saved" where x in ('homosexuals', 'Catholics', 'Mormons' 'abortionists', 'Obama').
Well you are evil Caliga, with all that lust in your heart.
I forgot 'perverts'. :(
I went to church today and listened to the sisters bear their testimony.
Whenever I feel like it. Which ain't much.
I've started going relatively often actually. More or less weekly for the past couple of months. Which is novel.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 06, 2012, 07:08:10 PM
I've started going relatively often actually. More or less weekly for the past couple of months. Which is novel.
I've managed to go a few times the past few years, just checking out different Catholic churches around the area, from the little late '60s architectural nightmare where I was baptized (http://users2.e-scapes.com/gaudreau/Religious/Our_Lady_of_perpetual_help.jpg) to the imperiously papal Cathedral of Mary Our Queen (http://cathedralofmary.org/tour/index.html). I just find Mass incredibly interesting, and I'm more focused on watching and reading the symbolism of it all than out of devotion. It's just a fascinating event.
And, I will admit, there's something stirring about the Mass processional ending with "Christ the Lord Is Risen Today". Just makes ya happy, until your team shanks the AFC Championship game 5 hours later.
I have to say that Catholic Masses are WAY more tolerable than evangelical Protestant services.
Oh, I forgot to mention--speaking of pervert, a year or so ago at Princesca's family church during the 'come forth to be baptized, sheeple' part this dude got up and announced to the congregation that he needed to be re-baptized and dedicate his life to Jeebus again because he was addicted to hardcore pornography. :) Later I asked Princesca's grandma what she thought about that and she blushed and said "Welllllllllll......" :blush:
I do love a fire and brimstone speech by some old cracker baptist preacher. The younger preachers just don't have it.
I find Mormon ceremonies interesting. There's no service of any kind. No pastor, no sermon. It's just an hour and a half or so of music and individuals coming up to share their struggles and reaffirm their faith. I rather have enjoyed it, if for nothing else than I enjoy seeing women cry.
"My father is dying and he's a vegetable and its sooooo hard to see the big strong man who used to carry me so weak and waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah...heavenly father, give me strength."
Me inside = :lmfao:
Me outside = :)
I'm a wicked man. :(
I try to go to Mass once a month or so. I tried going with some friends to their megachurch but it felt like an hour long infomercial. Creepy.
Quote from: Caliga on May 06, 2012, 07:31:11 PM
I have to say that Catholic Masses are WAY more tolerable than evangelical Protestant services.
My two knocks against the Papists are that constant standing up and kneeling BS, and the fact that Catholics are all tone deaf.
Jaron: :lol:
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on May 06, 2012, 07:37:46 PM
I try to go to Mass once a month or so. I tried going with some friends to their megachurch but it felt like an hour long infomercial. Creepy.
People here have tried to get me to go to Southeast Christian a few times, which is the local megachurch. UM, NO.
I still await the Big Butter Jesus rebuilding.
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 06, 2012, 07:34:51 PM
I do love a fire and brimstone speech by some old cracker baptist preacher. The younger preachers just don't have it.
A good friend of mine's father passed away recently, and I attended the service for him at your typical older-congregation-inner-city Dazzling Urbanite Baptist church; I tell you, there may have been a dead guy in the room, but it was a total blast. It wasn't a funeral service, it was a celebration. The usher corp doing their little processional march, the choir singing the relaxer right out of their collective hair, the Minister dropping that bass in his voice while hurtling himself towards the crescendo. There's a certain hypnotic cadence and rhythm to it, you just can't help but groove to it.
And the hats....girl, do the ladies break out their hats.
I'm tell you all, seriously: if you ever feel down and out in life, man, you go sit in on an old-school black Baptist church service (avoid the AME ones though, they don't count). It is, quite frankly, invigorating in every sense of the word. And they don't give two shits what color you are, you are all Jesus' chillins.
From the churches i've been to at least three times, my personal preference would break down thus:
Lutheran (Missouri synod!)
Catholic
White Folks Southern Baptist
Mormon (Those places feel very awkward...)
Assembly of God
Of these, I've been to Catholic service by far the most, to please the former missus's mother, who I hold in extremely high regard. I stepped into a mainline methodist one, and was a little depressed by its pluralism. Catholics have the best accessories, but Lutherans have an aura of serious study of their religious text detatched from the passions you'll find in a Baptist church that I find really appealing. I suppose it'd please my roommate if I converted.. :wub:
Why do you feel awkward, Lettow? PM me if you want to talk about it. I have some literature I could share with you.
If you'd prefer, you can also go to http://mormon.org/chat/ and live chat with the missionaries.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 06, 2012, 07:38:25 PM
Quote from: Caliga on May 06, 2012, 07:31:11 PM
I have to say that Catholic Masses are WAY more tolerable than evangelical Protestant services.
My two knocks against the Papists are that constant standing up and kneeling BS, and the fact that Catholics are all tone deaf.
The kneeling is a pain. Think of it as an impromptu aerobics class. I don't go as often as I should on account of being afraid of people. I also attribute my dislike of alcohol to Catholic Mass.
Quote from: Jaron on May 06, 2012, 08:11:24 PM
Why do you feel awkward, Lettow? PM me if you want to talk about it. I have some literature I could share with you.
If you'd prefer, you can also go to http://mormon.org/chat/ and live chat with the missionaries.
:D
Are you going to pull the trigger bra, buy the pants? Or have you already pulled the trigger?
Weddings, funerals, and Christmas Eve to make my mom happy. I was forced to go every Sunday till my sister left for college when I was 16, so I have a lot of resentment and hatred toward the concept. Add in that my dad never had to go except on Christmas Eve, and you have a lot of missed football and church freedom bonding. I think it should be the individual's choice, not forced upon them.
Quote from: Jaron on May 06, 2012, 08:11:24 PM
Why do you feel awkward, Lettow? PM me if you want to talk about it. I have some literature I could share with you.
If you'd prefer, you can also go to http://mormon.org/chat/ and live chat with the missionaries.
Because, like you said, it is unprofessional people giving witness to their testimonies. They are nice people, but not especially good orators. Then they immediately violate my notion of what is too personal with their stories. Afterwards, there is the division into gender/age bracket determined groups- I remember the aaronic section was basically a labor conscription pool, with various tasks that people in the community needed done being handed off to "volunteers." Bleh. Also, their namby-pamby psuedo-sacrament was proffered upon me, when I couldn't in good conscience accept it.
I remember when I was younger I invited missionaries to come to my house. My mother was furious and uncivil with them- and a passing baptist who had intended to sell (!) religious papers to us gave them for free out of concern for my soul and a desire not to leave the mormon pamphlets go unanswered.
Missionaries the way Mormonism does it just doesn't click with me. They are just children raised into the faith, and scarcely qualified to be doing what they are doing. It is as much to indoctrinate them as it actually proselytize
Ara ara! did that sound cynical? I don't mean to be mean- they are some great folks and I think highly of their faith.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fc%2Fcd%2FGarment.jpg&hash=e8ea569e6c4e4736701251a876087482b57ba5c9)
As terribly comfortable as those look, I'll stick to my bikini style boxer briefs.
Furthermore, the garments help keep your thoughts pure. No man wonders what a woman has on under her clothes if he already knows. These garments are meant to replace the modern style of underwear - which is often sexualized and entices the minds of men with sheer fabrics, bright colors, or revealing patterns.
PS: I sort of dig the banana hammock on the male temple garment.
Only for funerals.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 06, 2012, 07:54:20 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 06, 2012, 07:34:51 PM
I do love a fire and brimstone speech by some old cracker baptist preacher. The younger preachers just don't have it.
A good friend of mine's father passed away recently, and I attended the service for him at your typical older-congregation-inner-city Dazzling Urbanite Baptist church; I tell you, there may have been a dead guy in the room, but it was a total blast. It wasn't a funeral service, it was a celebration. The usher corp doing their little processional march, the choir singing the relaxer right out of their collective hair, the Minister dropping that bass in his voice while hurtling himself towards the crescendo. There's a certain hypnotic cadence and rhythm to it, you just can't help but groove to it.
And the hats....girl, do the ladies break out their hats.
I'm tell you all, seriously: if you ever feel down and out in life, man, you go sit in on an old-school black Baptist church service (avoid the AME ones though, they don't count). It is, quite frankly, invigorating in every sense of the word. And they don't give two shits what color you are, you are all Jesus' chillins.
I love the black churches. And man, when they do charity work, they
work. Even though you know the preacher is pocketing a bit for himself. NICE MERCEDES REVEREND.
Quote from: Jaron on May 06, 2012, 08:26:28 PM
PS: I sort of dig the banana hammock on the male temple garment.
Seems very practical. You've got an emergency pocket there in case you forget to put on your pants when you leave the house.
Quote from: Lettow77 on May 06, 2012, 08:24:20 PM
Quote from: Jaron on May 06, 2012, 08:11:24 PM
Why do you feel awkward, Lettow? PM me if you want to talk about it. I have some literature I could share with you.
If you'd prefer, you can also go to http://mormon.org/chat/ and live chat with the missionaries.
Because, like you said, it is unprofessional people giving witness to their testimonies. They are nice people, but not especially good orators. Then they immediately violate my notion of what is too personal with their stories. Afterwards, there is the division into gender/age bracket determined groups- I remember the aaronic section was basically a labor conscription pool, with various tasks that people in the community needed done being handed off to "volunteers." Bleh. Also, their namby-pamby psuedo-sacrament was proffered upon me, when I couldn't in good conscience accept it.
I remember when I was younger I invited missionaries to come to my house. My mother was furious and uncivil with them- and a passing baptist who had intended to sell (!) religious papers to us gave them for free out of concern for my soul and a desire not to leave the mormon pamphlets go unanswered.
Missionaries the way Mormonism does it just doesn't click with me. They are just children raised into the faith, and scarcely qualified to be doing what they are doing. It is as much to indoctrinate them as it actually proselytize
Ara ara! did that sound cynical? I don't mean to be mean- they are some great folks and I think highly of their faith.
Let me bring peace to your troubled mind. There is great comfort in the words of a sagely man preaching to us about the works of God and warning us of the vices of the earthly kingdom. Yet there is great strength and wisdom in the words of your brothers and sisters; Is it not a comfort to know you are not alone in your struggle? Is it not a blessing to know that others walk the same path and find strength in their faith? Is it not an inspiration to you?
Yes, Mormons are raised steeped in their faith. Yes, it is a foregone conclusion most will serve a mission. Yet, few serve out of obligation but rather because they have felt a calling from God and wish to share the joy of the gospel with other people. It is not an attempt to conquer and convert; It is a joyous offer - an invitation and nothing more. They so offer the salvation and the key to the Celestial Kingdom, but they do not force it.
A good portion of what a missionary does is based on works and not baptism headcounts. They do acts of service for people just like you and I: They wash our cars, clean our rooms, rake our leaves and do our grocery shoppings. Trust not in the words of Jaron, but bear witness to the message I bring you: I invite you to pursue the study for yourself, read, pray and God will answer your uneasiness with enlightenment.
God be with you, Lettow.
That is where you store part of your year's worth of rations.
Quote from: Jaron on May 06, 2012, 08:31:48 PM
<moé mormon propaganda>
That's absolutely adorable and tells me you are living a wonderful life out there in Deseret. I'd be delighted if some Mormon would baptize me after I die. :)
+1 re: Black churches are OSSUM. Went to a wedding for one of my former secretaries at one here in Louisville. After "you may now kiss the bride" dude bent her backward and started making out with her. :cool: Someone in the audience said "awww, my BROTHA!" Stereotypes were reinforced and Cal's heart was gladdened. Also, the chicken at the reception was the shiznit. :cool:
Fried Chicken I hope.
I could never get on board with the fried chicken and watermelon thing, simply because these are delicious foods and anyone I know who doesn't like them is a yankee or johnny foreigner or some such. When seeking to cast out for a less universal food that is ubiquitous amongst local black folks, it'd have to be hot fries, jungle juice or buffalo wings.
(Black people also have a disproportionate observed preference for sprite when choosing their carbonated beverage.)
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 06, 2012, 08:40:28 PM
Fried Chicken I hope.
Duh. I can't remember if there were ribs or not. :hmm:
Quote from: Lettow77 on May 06, 2012, 08:44:25 PM
I could never get on board with the fried chicken and watermelon thing, simply because these are delicious foods and anyone I know who doesn't like them is a yankee or johnny foreigner or some such. When seeking to cast out for a less universal food that is ubiquitous amongst local black folks, it'd have to be hot fries, jungle juice or buffalo wings.
(Black people also have a disproportionate observed preference for sprite when choosing their carbonated beverage.)
In my experience it's grape or orange soda or Yoo-Hoo. :hmm:
Grape/Orange soda are other strong favourites, you are absolutely right. I haven't seen the yoo-hoo thing, although I have (had? it's been years..) a passing fondness for it myself.
I agree with Cal; They like drinks that remind them of Kool Aid - strawberry, orange, grape. The more militant ones may drink chocolate milk to spite white people and their dairy industry.
We'll need to hear from CdM; I fear Cal and I lack the experience on negro culture to speak with the authority that he can.
This thread reminds me that shamefully no-longer-baby-Tim remains unbaptized. :(
We'll have to get going on that once the new baby arrives.
I dont go. The church is evil.
Weekly :goodboy:
Quote from: Jaron on May 06, 2012, 08:52:08 PM
I agree with Cal; They like drinks that remind them of Kool Aid - strawberry, orange, grape. The more militant ones may drink chocolate milk to spite white people and their dairy industry.
We'll need to hear from CdM; I fear Cal and I lack the experience on negro culture to speak with the authority that he can.
While it is not uncommon to see the average Dazzling Urbanite with a Sprite out in the wild as far as carbonated beverages go--occasionally, a dominant male will be seen with a Mountain Dew--in their native habitat they are much more accustomed to the flavored juice drinks like Grape and Orange, as it provides a direct, tactile connection from when their mothers would nurse them with Kool-Aid, prior to their tails falling off.
Quote from: Valmy on May 06, 2012, 10:08:26 PM
Weekly :goodboy:
Unitarians don't count. :contract:
Quote from: Barrister on May 06, 2012, 10:16:40 PM
Unitarians don't count. :contract:
We count to one unlike the three you heretical paganistic trinitarians count to.
Quote from: Barrister on May 06, 2012, 06:26:19 PM
When I do drag my ass to church I invariably feel good about it.
Sadly I rarely do it. :(
Your church lets you do that? :w00t:
No.
Quote from: The Brain on May 06, 2012, 11:38:05 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 06, 2012, 06:26:19 PM
When I do drag my ass to church I invariably feel good about it.
Sadly I rarely do it. :(
Your church lets you do that? :w00t:
Across the carpet?
I've been in a church, once or twice.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 06, 2012, 10:16:25 PM
Quote from: Jaron on May 06, 2012, 08:52:08 PM
I agree with Cal; They like drinks that remind them of Kool Aid - strawberry, orange, grape. The more militant ones may drink chocolate milk to spite white people and their dairy industry.
We'll need to hear from CdM; I fear Cal and I lack the experience on negro culture to speak with the authority that he can.
While it is not uncommon to see the average Dazzling Urbanite with a Sprite out in the wild as far as carbonated beverages go--occasionally, a dominant male will be seen with a Mountain Dew--in their native habitat they are much more accustomed to the flavored juice drinks like Grape and Orange, as it provides a direct, tactile connection from when their mothers would nurse them with Kool-Aid, prior to their tails falling off.
omg.
:lmfao:
Hi Valms. :frog:
Quote from: Jaron on May 06, 2012, 07:35:41 PM
I find Mormon ceremonies interesting. There's no service of any kind. No pastor, no sermon. It's just an hour and a half or so of music and individuals coming up to share their struggles and reaffirm their faith. I rather have enjoyed it, if for nothing else than I enjoy seeing women cry.
"My father is dying and he's a vegetable and its sooooo hard to see the big strong man who used to carry me so weak and waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah...heavenly father, give me strength."
Me inside = :lmfao:
Me outside = :)
I'm a wicked man. :(
You should write a book about your experiences in the Mormon land. :D
the occasional wedding and christening. Probally just over a hand's worth of times in my life.
In the states I like to go twice a month if I can.
Quote from: Tyr on May 07, 2012, 02:59:19 AM
the occasional wedding and christening. Probally just over a hand's worth of times in my life.
My friends don't get married or baptize their children (in fact most of them don't have children) so this leaves me with an occassional funeral.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 06, 2012, 07:54:20 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 06, 2012, 07:34:51 PM
I do love a fire and brimstone speech by some old cracker baptist preacher. The younger preachers just don't have it.
A good friend of mine's father passed away recently, and I attended the service for him at your typical older-congregation-inner-city Dazzling Urbanite Baptist church; I tell you, there may have been a dead guy in the room, but it was a total blast. It wasn't a funeral service, it was a celebration. The usher corp doing their little processional march, the choir singing the relaxer right out of their collective hair, the Minister dropping that bass in his voice while hurtling himself towards the crescendo. There's a certain hypnotic cadence and rhythm to it, you just can't help but groove to it.
And the hats....girl, do the ladies break out their hats.
I'm tell you all, seriously: if you ever feel down and out in life, man, you go sit in on an old-school black Baptist church service (avoid the AME ones though, they don't count). It is, quite frankly, invigorating in every sense of the word. And they don't give two shits what color you are, you are all Jesus' chillins.
One of the priests in my home parish had gone to a couple of those services, and hoped to introduce a few aspects to his Mass services, just to put a little life into things, which could get deathly still. No luck.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on May 07, 2012, 05:19:43 AM
One of the priests in my home parish had gone to a couple of those services, and hoped to introduce a few aspects to his Mass services, just to put a little life into things, which could get deathly still. No luck.
Sort of reminds me of the early/mid 1970's, when my parents tried to take us to a more "progressive" service our church was trying to introduce, something aimed at the young people to see if we would like it.
I don't remember much except guitars, tambourines, the singing and my father saying, "What the hell is this bullshit?"
They do that shit at one of the Catholic churches here, and it's actually very popular.
Quote from: Caliga on May 07, 2012, 06:34:21 AM
They do that shit at one of the Catholic churches here, and it's actually very popular.
I think it's a little different than it was back in the '70s; I doubt they're wearing headbands, leather vests with fringes, and generally looking like Pacino straight out of
Serpico these days.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 06, 2012, 10:16:25 PM
Quote from: Jaron on May 06, 2012, 08:52:08 PM
I agree with Cal; They like drinks that remind them of Kool Aid - strawberry, orange, grape. The more militant ones may drink chocolate milk to spite white people and their dairy industry.
We'll need to hear from CdM; I fear Cal and I lack the experience on negro culture to speak with the authority that he can.
While it is not uncommon to see the average Dazzling Urbanite with a Sprite out in the wild as far as carbonated beverages go--occasionally, a dominant male will be seen with a Mountain Dew--in their native habitat they are much more accustomed to the flavored juice drinks like Grape and Orange, as it provides a direct, tactile connection from when their mothers would nurse them with Kool-Aid, prior to their tails falling off.
:lol:
Quote from: Lettow77 on May 06, 2012, 05:41:10 PM
I was just curious. A part of being closer to my roommate and living with his family is church on sundays, and it is nostalgic for me. I approve of faith, but regret I can't in good conscience adhere to it myself. Even so, there is much to recommend for the experience, and it occurred to me this is likely a rather irreligious segment of the population.
only if there's a funeral for someone close. Or a marriage, but thank 'od, that doesn't happen much anymore.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 07, 2012, 06:50:54 AM
Quote from: Caliga on May 07, 2012, 06:34:21 AM
They do that shit at one of the Catholic churches here, and it's actually very popular.
I think it's a little different than it was back in the '70s; I doubt they're wearing headbands, leather vests with fringes, and generally looking like Pacino straight out of Serpico these days.
I hope not. Except on Halloween.
Only go as a tourist... to admire the architecture and the art that might be on display.
They changed around the service in the Catholic Church last fall. I hate it.
Quote from: PRC on May 07, 2012, 10:25:57 AM
Only go as a tourist... to admire the architecture and the art that might be on display.
I do that too, but I wouldn't count that as church attendance (especially as most places prohibit sight-seeing during the mass).
I can't even think of anyone who goes to church other than for weddings, funerals and such.
Quote from: Martinus on May 07, 2012, 10:40:44 AM
Quote from: PRC on May 07, 2012, 10:25:57 AM
Only go as a tourist... to admire the architecture and the art that might be on display.
I do that too, but I wouldn't count that as church attendance (especially as most places prohibit sight-seeing during the mass).
You should checkc out some Mosques. A lot of them have beautiful architecture. Especially the Shi-ite ones I've seen.
The first time I went to a catholic mass I was maybe seven years old. It was absolutely shocking to me, as I'd only been in regular congregational protty church before. (Although my mom did go to a black church for five years before I was born.) The experience actually frightened me--all the stuff and the robes and omg they aren't speaking English. :lol:
I think it was a catechism or something. I refused to let the guy put anything in my mouth. I can eat Jesus all by myself thanks. :P
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 07, 2012, 11:33:30 AM
I refused to let the guy put anything in my mouth.
In hindsight, that was a very good move.
:lol:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 06, 2012, 07:26:08 PM
I've managed to go a few times the past few years, just checking out different Catholic churches around the area, from the little late '60s architectural nightmare where I was baptized (http://users2.e-scapes.com/gaudreau/Religious/Our_Lady_of_perpetual_help.jpg) to the imperiously papal Cathedral of Mary Our Queen (http://cathedralofmary.org/tour/index.html). I just find Mass incredibly interesting, and I'm more focused on watching and reading the symbolism of it all than out of devotion. It's just a fascinating event.
I do that fairly often. The full Tridentine at the Brompton Oratory is pretty stunning:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brompton_Oratory
But most Sundays I just go to one of a few Anglican Churches. Many use the Book of Common Prayer (:wub:) and have extraordinary music.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 07, 2012, 12:07:18 PM
But most Sundays I just go to one of a few Anglican Churches. Many use the Book of Common Prayer (:wub:) and have extraordinary music.
One of the most hilarious bits of internal church political squabling in the US is the Angli...er...Episcopal congregations bickering over the Prayer Book. Practically every version of the thing has a cult around it. I think the most recent one is from the 80s.
Quote from: Valmy on May 07, 2012, 12:30:47 PMOne of the most hilarious bits of internal church political squabling in the US is the Angli...er...Episcopal congregations bickering over the Prayer Book. Practically every version of the thing has a cult around it. I think the most recent one is from the 80s.
I think it's the same here, lots of meanings is attached to which type is used. It's too obscure for someone like me.
I like the 1662 one though. The language has rhythm and weight, 'it is very meet, right and our bounden duty, that we should at all times, and in all places, give thanks unto thee....' I love that 'bounden duty'.
I only attend for hatch, match and dispatch, and only when there's decent wine afterwards.
nope, waste of time.
if for a second we assume there's a lifeform we can classify as a god then he or she will nkow his/her own when the time comes.
Quote from: Brazen on May 07, 2012, 01:10:28 PM
I only attend for hatch, match and dispatch,
Nice! :lol:
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on May 07, 2012, 01:23:30 PM
nope, waste of time.
if for a second we assume there's a lifeform we can classify as a god then he or she will nkow his/her own when the time comes.
Yeah if you are going to please God you are really rolling the dice. There are thousands of religions out there. Chances are you are going to the wrong one.
Wow, I knew you were a bunch of godless heathens, but seriously, this is scary.
I go to church at least twice a week, most weeks. Vespers every Friday, and Liturgy every Sunday (which service invariably includes two shorter services, so there).
Quote from: Scipio on May 07, 2012, 01:38:13 PM
Wow, I knew you were a bunch of godless heathens, but seriously, this is scary.
I go to church at least twice a week, most weeks. Vespers every Friday, and Liturgy every Sunday (which service invariably includes two shorter services, so there).
Now that's scary.
I went to a church yesterday for a first commununion. Man it's boring.
I went with special occasions as closest though sometimes I go just for the hell of it.
Quote from: Valmy on May 07, 2012, 01:30:59 PM
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on May 07, 2012, 01:23:30 PM
nope, waste of time.
if for a second we assume there's a lifeform we can classify as a god then he or she will nkow his/her own when the time comes.
Yeah if you are going to please God you are really rolling the dice. There are thousands of religions out there. Chances are you are going to the wrong one.
Einstein was wrong, God does play dice.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 07, 2012, 02:06:26 PM
Einstein was wrong, God does play dice.
Who is God here me or CI80?
Quote from: Razgovory on May 07, 2012, 02:09:01 PM
Probably neither one of you.
Ok I don't get it then.
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 07, 2012, 01:49:33 PM
Quote from: Scipio on May 07, 2012, 01:38:13 PM
Wow, I knew you were a bunch of godless heathens, but seriously, this is scary.
I go to church at least twice a week, most weeks. Vespers every Friday, and Liturgy every Sunday (which service invariably includes two shorter services, so there).
Now that's scary.
Yeah. I don't see why rational thought would be scary. As opposed to insanity of going to a church on a regular basis.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 07, 2012, 02:06:26 PM
Einstein was wrong, God does play dice.
Yeah. Liar's dice.
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 07, 2012, 01:49:33 PM
Quote from: Scipio on May 07, 2012, 01:38:13 PM
Wow, I knew you were a bunch of godless heathens, but seriously, this is scary.
I go to church at least twice a week, most weeks. Vespers every Friday, and Liturgy every Sunday (which service invariably includes two shorter services, so there).
Now that's scary.
Not really scary, just...a lot of time investment.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 07, 2012, 02:37:23 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 07, 2012, 01:49:33 PM
Quote from: Scipio on May 07, 2012, 01:38:13 PM
Wow, I knew you were a bunch of godless heathens, but seriously, this is scary.
I go to church at least twice a week, most weeks. Vespers every Friday, and Liturgy every Sunday (which service invariably includes two shorter services, so there).
Now that's scary.
Not really scary, just...a lot of time investment.
Not that much time. It's like .01 percent of your time.
Quote from: Martinus on May 07, 2012, 02:23:21 PM
Yeah. I don't see why rational thought would be scary. As opposed to insanity of going to a church on a regular basis.
Spending time with people I like, talking about important issues with likeminded people, and collaboration for charity work sounds pretty rational to me. I guess it just depends on what your reasons are.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 07, 2012, 02:46:02 PM
Not that much time. It's like .01 percent of your time.
I don't know. I mean, three or fours hours a week is a significant investment for me. My free time is limited.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 07, 2012, 03:08:26 PM
I don't know. I mean, three or fours hours a week is a significant investment for me. My free time is limited.
Indeed, I reserve my Sundays for things that help me recover from the stresses of the week, not add to it.
I'm somewhere between the second and third option. I make my 4-year old go about every week (with my parents) and will probably start going every week myself when my daughter is old enough to start going to Sunday school and actually get something out of it.
Thought I'd be able to corral the wife into joining my church and at least going through the motions, but it turns out that she's pretty devoutly a non-practicing Catholic. Not a devout Catholic, per se, but she clearly doesn't want to have anything to do with my church :lol:
The good thing is that her non-interest in religion prevents any conflicts about which way to raise teh kidz.
That reminds me of certain quote:
QuoteI don't even believe in my god, which is the true one. Why would I believe in yours?
Quote from: derspiess on May 07, 2012, 03:41:43 PM
I'm somewhere between the second and third option. I make my 4-year old go about every week (with my parents) and will probably start going every week myself when my daughter is old enough to start going to Sunday school and actually get something out of it.
Thought I'd be able to corral the wife into joining my church and at least going through the motions, but it turns out that she's pretty devoutly a non-practicing Catholic. Not a devout Catholic, per se, but she clearly doesn't want to have anything to do with my church :lol:
The good thing is that her non-interest in religion prevents any conflicts about which way to raise teh kidz.
So, when are you going to give the kids the opt-out option? I'm planning on sitting them down at age 12 and asking them what they think and if they want to continue the church going. Or if they express doubts earlier.
Atheist douchebag Dawkins type thinking? BEATINGS.
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 07, 2012, 05:06:39 PM
So, when are you going to give the kids the opt-out option? I'm planning on sitting them down at age 12 and asking them what they think and if they want to continue the church going. Or if they express doubts earlier
Jesus, you sound like my sister and my lawyer brother-in-law.
AGE OF CONSENT ALSO APPLIES TO FAITH DAMMIT
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 07, 2012, 05:13:00 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 07, 2012, 05:06:39 PM
So, when are you going to give the kids the opt-out option? I'm planning on sitting them down at age 12 and asking them what they think and if they want to continue the church going. Or if they express doubts earlier
Jesus, you sound like my sister and my lawyer brother-in-law.
AGE OF CONSENT ALSO APPLIES TO FAITH DAMMIT
I know how kids are. My goddaughter got real skeptical around age 11. After a talk, she agreed to stick it out for her mom. :cry:
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 07, 2012, 05:16:00 PM
I know how kids are. My goddaughter got real skeptical around age 11.
Catechism > Easter Bunny
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 07, 2012, 05:13:00 PM
Jesus, you sound like my sister and my lawyer brother-in-law.
AGE OF CONSENT ALSO APPLIES TO FAITH DAMMIT
I wouldn't go that far. I think it's ok to take kids to church before they are 18. Nothing that implies a commitment like baptism though.
Quote from: Maximus on May 07, 2012, 05:25:53 PM
I wouldn't go that far. I think it's ok to take kids to church before they are 18.
Take or force?
I certainly don't think kids should never be forced to do things they don't want to do. There are limits though. The specifics would vary, and I'm not getting into a parenting argument on languish.
They sure as hell ain't staying with me at home. I CAN'T HEAR NFL COUNTDOWN, YOU BRATS.
Quote from: Iormlund on May 07, 2012, 05:29:52 PM
Quote from: Maximus on May 07, 2012, 05:25:53 PM
I wouldn't go that far. I think it's ok to take kids to church before they are 18.
Take or force?
That is hilarious you would accuse Maximus, of all people, of forcibly taking kids to church.
Obviously it depends if the child can stay home alone unsupervised for a few hours. Most people do not have child care on call. If the kid is over 12 or so and does not want to go, I think it would be wrong to take them but that is just me. Parents are within their rights to...even though that would be sorta creepy especialy for over 16.
Take a chill pill. I haven't accused anyone of anything.
I'm curious because my experience is no kid wants to go to Church and I can't see how forcing them serves any practical purpose. The few people that I know who had to attend mass each Sunday haven't gone back since they fled the nest.
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 07, 2012, 05:16:00 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 07, 2012, 05:13:00 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 07, 2012, 05:06:39 PM
So, when are you going to give the kids the opt-out option? I'm planning on sitting them down at age 12 and asking them what they think and if they want to continue the church going. Or if they express doubts earlier
Jesus, you sound like my sister and my lawyer brother-in-law.
AGE OF CONSENT ALSO APPLIES TO FAITH DAMMIT
I know how kids are. My goddaughter got real skeptical around age 11. After a talk, she agreed to stick it out for her mom. :cry:
When I was six my Great Grandmother sent me some Biblical stories book. I questioned everything. My parents really didn't know what to do. :lmfao:
When I was about 10 my folks told me they didn't believe in God and only got me baptised to get into the local Church of England primary school. I rebelled and joined the Junior Christian Union as soon as I joined secondary school and covered my books with happy-clappy church stickers. I got better.
I seldom go to Church and if I go it's mostly for family reasons so for first baptisms, communions, marriages and funerals.
Quote from: Scipio on May 07, 2012, 01:38:13 PM
Wow, I knew you were a bunch of godless heathens, but seriously, this is scary.
I go to church at least twice a week, most weeks. Vespers every Friday, and Liturgy every Sunday (which service invariably includes two shorter services, so there).
Yes but it is probably a practically useful way for you to build up and maintain your social/work cycle. For me, and I guess for a lot of Europeans, it is not. I can talk to elderly people when I end up in a shelter house for the old.
Quote from: Iormlund on May 07, 2012, 06:04:52 PM
Take a chill pill. I haven't accused anyone of anything.
I thought it was funny given his background that's all.
QuoteI'm curious because my experience is no kid wants to go to Church and I can't see how forcing them serves any practical purpose. The few people that I know who had to attend mass each Sunday haven't gone back since they fled the nest.
In my experience lots of them do. But we do it a little differently. Generally no kids in the adult service unless they really really want to be there. The kids go do their own thing with the other kids (grouped by age cohort).
Quote from: Valmy on May 08, 2012, 07:55:17 AM
Quote from: Iormlund on May 07, 2012, 06:04:52 PM
Take a chill pill. I haven't accused anyone of anything.
I thought it was funny given his background that's all.
QuoteI'm curious because my experience is no kid wants to go to Church and I can't see how forcing them serves any practical purpose. The few people that I know who had to attend mass each Sunday haven't gone back since they fled the nest.
In my experience lots of them do. But we do it a little differently. Generally no kids in the adult service unless they really really want to be there. The kids go do their own thing with the other kids (grouped by age cohort).
Indoctrination un-supervized by parents! :thumbsup:
Quote from: Tamas on May 08, 2012, 08:20:47 AM
Indoctrination un-supervized by parents! :thumbsup:
With values I agree with. And I have far more influence there than I do over the school system or his day care. But, you know, mostly the kids just play together.
Quote from: Habsburg on May 07, 2012, 10:48:34 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 07, 2012, 05:16:00 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 07, 2012, 05:13:00 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 07, 2012, 05:06:39 PM
So, when are you going to give the kids the opt-out option? I'm planning on sitting them down at age 12 and asking them what they think and if they want to continue the church going. Or if they express doubts earlier
Jesus, you sound like my sister and my lawyer brother-in-law.
AGE OF CONSENT ALSO APPLIES TO FAITH DAMMIT
I know how kids are. My goddaughter got real skeptical around age 11. After a talk, she agreed to stick it out for her mom. :cry:
When I was six my Great Grandmother sent me some Biblical stories book. I questioned everything. My parents really didn't know what to do. :lmfao:
My favorite book when I was little was my Children's Illustrated Bible. :wub:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 08, 2012, 08:26:00 AM
My favorite book when I was little was my Children's Illustrated Bible. :wub:
I won that for Sunday school attendance :hmm:
I liked the pictures of Adam and Eve with the early mammals and Satan tempting Jeebus in the desert.
Quote from: Brazen on May 08, 2012, 08:29:00 AM
I liked the pictures of Adam and Eve with the early mammals and Satan tempting Jeebus in the desert.
I was sort of partial to Samson tearing down the Philistine Temple. That was badass. Nothing else really left a lasting impact :P
Quote from: Brazen on May 08, 2012, 08:29:00 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 08, 2012, 08:26:00 AM
My favorite book when I was little was my Children's Illustrated Bible. :wub:
I won that for Sunday school attendance :hmm:
I liked the pictures of Adam and Eve with the early mammals and Satan tempting Jeebus in the desert.
I was always fascinated with the meeting between Jesus and Pontius Pilate. I could never understand why Jesus just didn't play ball to save his own ass.
But then again, that was the point, wasn't it?
Quote from: Valmy on May 08, 2012, 08:25:03 AM
Quote from: Tamas on May 08, 2012, 08:20:47 AM
Indoctrination un-supervized by parents! :thumbsup:
With values I agree with. And I have far more influence there than I do over the school system or his day care. But, you know, mostly the kids just play together.
Actually I think you have a point. We do use fairytales to teach values and lessons to children.
The real problem is when they stick to them in adulthood as well. And of course that they are never told Cinderella as gospel.
Quote from: Tamas on May 08, 2012, 08:41:45 AM
Actually I think you have a point. We do use fairytales to teach values and lessons to children.
The real problem is when they stick to them in adulthood as well. And of course that they are never told Cinderella as gospel.
When they stick to values and lessons? Why is that a problem?
Whatevs. Y'all can sneer all you want. Secular humanism hasn't done dick for the Slavs worldwide, so you'll pardon me if I cling bitterly to my religion and guns in the United States, where I live freely thanks in large part to flight from religious persecution.
Quote from: Valmy on May 08, 2012, 08:46:22 AM
Quote from: Tamas on May 08, 2012, 08:41:45 AM
Actually I think you have a point. We do use fairytales to teach values and lessons to children.
The real problem is when they stick to them in adulthood as well. And of course that they are never told Cinderella as gospel.
When they stick to values and lessons? Why is that a problem?
As I said, we do teach a lot of stuff to kids via stories so whatever on that department. But you gotta' admit, you telling the story of Snowhite to your kid is not the same ballpark as when the priest tries to talk to them about what happened with Jesus and why.
It is, well, taken more seriously.
But this is just my personal problem with the huge self-delusion we call "religion".
Perhaps it is indeed needed for social stability, and we are better off reducing most of the population to worker ants via these superstitions, IDK.
Quote from: Scipio on May 08, 2012, 08:49:41 AM
Whatevs. Y'all can sneer all you want. Secular humanism hasn't done dick for the Slavs worldwide, so you'll pardon me if I cling bitterly to my religion and guns in the United States, where I live freely thanks in large part to flight from religious persecution.
I would put it that Slavs didn't do much for secular humanism ;)
Quote from: Scipio on May 08, 2012, 08:49:41 AM
Whatevs. Y'all can sneer all you want. Secular humanism hasn't done dick for the Slavs worldwide, so you'll pardon me if I cling bitterly to my religion and guns in the United States, where I live freely thanks in large part to flight from religious persecution.
Yup, the Moldovan Jew I work with says the same thing; and if you know how many Moldovan Jews are left in the world, one can understand why.
Quote from: Tamas on May 08, 2012, 08:52:03 AM
Quote from: Scipio on May 08, 2012, 08:49:41 AM
Whatevs. Y'all can sneer all you want. Secular humanism hasn't done dick for the Slavs worldwide, so you'll pardon me if I cling bitterly to my religion and guns in the United States, where I live freely thanks in large part to flight from religious persecution.
I would put it that Slavs didn't do much for secular humanism ;)
SUBHUMAN FIGHT
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 08, 2012, 08:53:11 AM
Quote from: Tamas on May 08, 2012, 08:52:03 AM
Quote from: Scipio on May 08, 2012, 08:49:41 AM
Whatevs. Y'all can sneer all you want. Secular humanism hasn't done dick for the Slavs worldwide, so you'll pardon me if I cling bitterly to my religion and guns in the United States, where I live freely thanks in large part to flight from religious persecution.
I would put it that Slavs didn't do much for secular humanism ;)
SUBHUMAN FIGHT
aren't you, like, of Irish descent? The gypsies of western europe?
Quote from: Tamas on May 08, 2012, 08:51:10 AM
But this is just my personal problem with the huge self-delusion we call "religion".
Perhaps it is indeed needed for social stability, and we are better off reducing most of the population to worker ants via these superstitions, IDK.
Practically everything in human life, the important stuff anyway, is entirely made up and exists only in the human mind. So I picked a religion that I liked and agreed with its values, because what belief system I adopt is completely and entirely meaningless and arbitrary. I do not see anything particularly self-delusional about that.
And most of the population will pick superstitions to follow, look at the sorts your countrymen embrace.
Quote from: Scipio on May 08, 2012, 08:49:41 AM
Whatevs. Y'all can sneer all you want. Secular humanism hasn't done dick for the Slavs worldwide, so you'll pardon me if I cling bitterly to my religion and guns in the United States, where I live freely thanks in large part to flight from religious persecution.
Apart from the US, UK, Canada and Australia where have slavs encountered Secular Humanism?
Quote from: Viking on May 08, 2012, 09:02:27 AM
Apart from the US, UK, Canada and Australia where have slavs encountered Secular Humanism?
I doubt he has seen much Secular Humanism in Mississippi.
Quote from: Viking on May 08, 2012, 09:02:27 AM
Quote from: Scipio on May 08, 2012, 08:49:41 AM
Whatevs. Y'all can sneer all you want. Secular humanism hasn't done dick for the Slavs worldwide, so you'll pardon me if I cling bitterly to my religion and guns in the United States, where I live freely thanks in large part to flight from religious persecution.
Apart from the US, UK, Canada and Australia where have slavs encountered Secular Humanism?
:wacko:
Quote from: Barrister on May 08, 2012, 09:04:28 AM
Quote from: Viking on May 08, 2012, 09:02:27 AM
Quote from: Scipio on May 08, 2012, 08:49:41 AM
Whatevs. Y'all can sneer all you want. Secular humanism hasn't done dick for the Slavs worldwide, so you'll pardon me if I cling bitterly to my religion and guns in the United States, where I live freely thanks in large part to flight from religious persecution.
Apart from the US, UK, Canada and Australia where have slavs encountered Secular Humanism?
:wacko:
I am merely making the assertion that Secular Humanism is a phenomenon not common in slavic countries before 1989. I also make the assertion that the US is country founded on secular principles putting people before god.
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 07, 2012, 05:06:39 PM
So, when are you going to give the kids the opt-out option? I'm planning on sitting them down at age 12 and asking them what they think and if they want to continue the church going. Or if they express doubts earlier.
Atheist douchebag Dawkins type thinking? BEATINGS.
Have not thought that far ahead. I guess I'll probably make them go through high school, then shame them into going for Christmas, Easter, etc. after that.
Quote from: Barrister on May 08, 2012, 09:04:28 AM
Quote from: Viking on May 08, 2012, 09:02:27 AM
Quote from: Scipio on May 08, 2012, 08:49:41 AM
Whatevs. Y'all can sneer all you want. Secular humanism hasn't done dick for the Slavs worldwide, so you'll pardon me if I cling bitterly to my religion and guns in the United States, where I live freely thanks in large part to flight from religious persecution.
Apart from the US, UK, Canada and Australia where have slavs encountered Secular Humanism?
:wacko:
That's an excellent question, actually. Scipio made it sound like Slavs were royally screwed over secular humanism en masse, whereas they only encountered (outside of those countries) with, hmmmm, communist secularism, which was about fucking you up if you kept going to churches. Not the same thing.
Quote from: Tamas on May 08, 2012, 09:09:37 AM
That's an excellent question, actually. Scipio made it sound like Slavs were royally screwed over secular humanism en masse, whereas they only encountered (outside of those countries) with, hmmmm, communist secularism, which was about fucking you up if you kept going to churches. Not the same thing.
communist secularism? Did Stalin run a dictatorship on the principle of separation of Church and State? Not communist secularism; communist totalitarianism.
Quote from: Viking on May 08, 2012, 09:13:51 AM
Quote from: Tamas on May 08, 2012, 09:09:37 AM
That's an excellent question, actually. Scipio made it sound like Slavs were royally screwed over secular humanism en masse, whereas they only encountered (outside of those countries) with, hmmmm, communist secularism, which was about fucking you up if you kept going to churches. Not the same thing.
communist secularism? Did Stalin run a dictatorship on the principle of separation of Church and State? Not communist secularism; communist totalitarianism.
I know, I was just following the equatation (sp?) Scipio seems to have made
Quote from: Tamas on May 08, 2012, 08:58:30 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 08, 2012, 08:53:11 AM
Quote from: Tamas on May 08, 2012, 08:52:03 AM
Quote from: Scipio on May 08, 2012, 08:49:41 AM
Whatevs. Y'all can sneer all you want. Secular humanism hasn't done dick for the Slavs worldwide, so you'll pardon me if I cling bitterly to my religion and guns in the United States, where I live freely thanks in large part to flight from religious persecution.
I would put it that Slavs didn't do much for secular humanism ;)
SUBHUMAN FIGHT
aren't you, like, of Irish descent? The gypsies of western europe?
I'm also of German decent, which just made an appearance in this thread. So there.
Quote from: derspiess on May 08, 2012, 09:09:03 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 07, 2012, 05:06:39 PM
So, when are you going to give the kids the opt-out option? I'm planning on sitting them down at age 12 and asking them what they think and if they want to continue the church going. Or if they express doubts earlier.
Atheist douchebag Dawkins type thinking? BEATINGS.
Have not thought that far ahead. I guess I'll probably make them go through high school, then shame them into going for Christmas, Easter, etc. after that.
Why do you not go every week but your kid does?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 08, 2012, 09:17:24 AM
Quote from: Tamas on May 08, 2012, 08:58:30 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 08, 2012, 08:53:11 AM
Quote from: Tamas on May 08, 2012, 08:52:03 AM
Quote from: Scipio on May 08, 2012, 08:49:41 AM
Whatevs. Y'all can sneer all you want. Secular humanism hasn't done dick for the Slavs worldwide, so you'll pardon me if I cling bitterly to my religion and guns in the United States, where I live freely thanks in large part to flight from religious persecution.
I would put it that Slavs didn't do much for secular humanism ;)
SUBHUMAN FIGHT
aren't you, like, of Irish descent? The gypsies of western europe?
I'm also of German decent, which just made an appearance in this thread. So there.
I also have some German blood in me, bruder!
Quote from: Tamas on May 08, 2012, 09:21:54 AM
I also have some German blood in me, bruder!
Cool. Let's videotape each other shitting, post it on the internet and get rich!
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 08, 2012, 08:32:19 AM
I was always fascinated with the meeting between Jesus and Pontius Pilate. I could never understand why Jesus just didn't play ball to save his own ass.
But then again, that was the point, wasn't it?
Yeah, that one and the one where Frodo travels all the way to the Crack of Doom and then doesn't throw the ring in. I didn't get that one, either.
Again, probably a plot necessity.
CdM shits on his heritage yet again.
Quote from: grumbler on May 08, 2012, 09:24:14 AM
Yeah, that one and the one where Frodo travels all the way to the Crack of Doom and then doesn't throw the ring in. I didn't get that one, either.
Again, probably a plot necessity.
What do you mean? That was obvious. His personal will was overwhelmed by the power of the Ring.
Quote from: grumbler on May 08, 2012, 09:24:14 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 08, 2012, 08:32:19 AM
I was always fascinated with the meeting between Jesus and Pontius Pilate. I could never understand why Jesus just didn't play ball to save his own ass.
But then again, that was the point, wasn't it?
Yeah, that one and the one where Frodo travels all the way to the Crack of Doom and then doesn't throw the ring in. I didn't get that one, either.
Again, probably a plot necessity.
8 year old CdM doesn't understand why you're such a mean old man.
Quote from: grumbler on May 08, 2012, 09:24:14 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 08, 2012, 08:32:19 AM
I was always fascinated with the meeting between Jesus and Pontius Pilate. I could never understand why Jesus just didn't play ball to save his own ass.
But then again, that was the point, wasn't it?
Yeah, that one and the one where Frodo travels all the way to the Crack of Doom and then doesn't throw the ring in. I didn't get that one, either.
Again, probably a plot necessity.
My lack of indoctrination shows well in case of the whole Jesus sacrifice thingie. Doesn't work with the omnipotent God angle. It also doesn't work with the non-opmnipotent God angle either.
Quote from: Tamas on May 08, 2012, 09:29:03 AM
My lack of indoctrination shows well in case of the whole Jesus sacrifice thingie. Doesn't work with the omnipotent God angle. It also doesn't work with the non-opmnipotent God angle either.
If God is Omnipotent how can something not work for him? :hmm:
Quote from: Valmy on May 08, 2012, 09:32:30 AM
Quote from: Tamas on May 08, 2012, 09:29:03 AM
My lack of indoctrination shows well in case of the whole Jesus sacrifice thingie. Doesn't work with the omnipotent God angle. It also doesn't work with the non-opmnipotent God angle either.
If God is Omnipotent how can something not work for him? :hmm:
Well, is God were Omnipotent then he could just change the law without having to redeem humanity by means of human sacrifice.
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 08, 2012, 09:18:41 AM
Why do you not go every week but your kid does?
I PUT MY TIME IN WHEN I WAS A KID. NOW IT'S HIS TURN.
But seriously, my wife has been working Sundays, so I stay home with my 1-year old girl. I could take her with me and drop her off in the nursery while I attend the morning service, but I feel weird doing that.
Quote from: Viking on May 08, 2012, 09:44:34 AM
Well, is God were Omnipotent then he could just change the law without having to redeem humanity by means of human sacrifice.
Well if God were omnipotent he could do it however he wanted. Everything works in that framework.
Why? God did it. Why did he do it? Because he wanted to.
Quote from: derspiess on May 08, 2012, 09:49:09 AM
I PUT MY TIME IN WHEN I WAS A KID. NOW IT'S HIS TURN.
But seriously, my wife has been working Sundays, so I stay home with my 1-year old girl. I could take her with me and drop her off in the nursery while I attend the morning service, but I feel weird doing that.
Why? The going to church alone thing?
Quote from: Valmy on May 08, 2012, 09:53:21 AM
Quote from: Viking on May 08, 2012, 09:44:34 AM
Well, is God were Omnipotent then he could just change the law without having to redeem humanity by means of human sacrifice.
Well if God were omnipotent he could do it however he wanted. Everything works in that framework.
Why? God did it. Why did he do it? Because he wanted to.
So, God's a dick?
Quote from: derspiess on May 08, 2012, 09:49:09 AM
I could take her with me and drop her off in the nursery while I attend the morning service, but I feel weird doing that.
Understandable.
Quote from: Valmy on May 08, 2012, 09:53:52 AM
Quote from: derspiess on May 08, 2012, 09:49:09 AM
I PUT MY TIME IN WHEN I WAS A KID. NOW IT'S HIS TURN.
But seriously, my wife has been working Sundays, so I stay home with my 1-year old girl. I could take her with me and drop her off in the nursery while I attend the morning service, but I feel weird doing that.
Why? The going to church alone thing?
Probably the leaving-the-1-year-old-alone-with-strangers thing.
Quote from: Viking on May 08, 2012, 09:55:05 AM
So, God's a dick?
Of course not. He so loved humanity he sent his only begotten son, himself, to be killed by us to draw our attention to the fact we could have eternal life. Otherwise we may not have noticed.
Besides he works in mysterious ways and is beyond human comprehension. Roll with me here Viking.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 08, 2012, 09:56:13 AM
Probably the leaving-the-1-year-old-alone-with-strangers thing.
Maybe but that is what most of us have to do every weekday so I didn't want to assume that was the reason.
Quote from: derspiess on May 08, 2012, 09:49:09 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 08, 2012, 09:18:41 AM
Why do you not go every week but your kid does?
I PUT MY TIME IN WHEN I WAS A KID. NOW IT'S HIS TURN.
But seriously, my wife has been working Sundays, so I stay home with my 1-year old girl. I could take her with me and drop her off in the nursery while I attend the morning service, but I feel weird doing that.
Why do you think it's important for him to go to church everyweek but not for you?
I understand taking care of the other kid but shouldn't Church going be above that?
That's how I see what Scipio is doing.
Quote from: Valmy on May 08, 2012, 09:58:07 AM
Quote from: Viking on May 08, 2012, 09:55:05 AM
So, God's a dick?
Of course not. He so loved humanity he sent his only begotten son, himself, to be killed by us to draw our attention to the fact we could have eternal life. Otherwise we may not have noticed.
Besides he works in mysterious ways and is beyond human comprehension. Roll with me here Viking.
Argument from Ignorance. You still have to establish that he exists, loves humanity, has an only begotten son, and that his death is about eternal life.
But, now, God isn't a dick, but he's incompetent. 3 out of 4 humans are going to die and go to hell because they don't belive in him to recieve eternal life. But, he still a dick since to do this he has to specifically condemn a long list of named people to hell since he had to, in mosaic terms, harden their hearts so they played their parts from farisees through pilate and judas.
Claiming that one cannot understand god's ways is the equivalent of refusing to show your work on a math exam.
Quote from: Valmy on May 08, 2012, 10:01:00 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 08, 2012, 09:56:13 AM
Probably the leaving-the-1-year-old-alone-with-strangers thing.
Maybe but that is what most of us have to do every weekday so I didn't want to assume that was the reason.
Yeah, but he's not the little missus; it's different when the Daddy does it. Ratchets up the tension. Something happens to the baby, it's his fault.
Quote from: Valmy on May 08, 2012, 09:58:07 AM
Quote from: Viking on May 08, 2012, 09:55:05 AM
So, God's a dick?
Of course not. He so loved humanity he sent his only begotten son, himself, to be killed by us to draw our attention to the fact we could have eternal life. Otherwise we may not have noticed.
Besides he works in mysterious ways and is beyond human comprehension. Roll with me here Viking.
If he were omnipotent, why couldn't he be less mysterious? It would certainly save us all a lot of miscommunication, and he'd still have his son.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 08, 2012, 10:12:37 AM
Yeah, but he's not the little missus; it's different when the Daddy does it. Ratchets up the tension. Something happens to the baby, it's his fault.
Ooooooh good point :ph34r:
Quote from: DGuller on May 08, 2012, 10:18:14 AM
If he were omnipotent, why couldn't he be less mysterious? It would certainly save us all a lot of miscommunication, and he'd still have his son.
Well he does still have his son, having raised him back from the dead and brought him to heaven.
And if he was less mysterious we would all die horribly from the awesomeness that is God...of course he could have made us able to not die horribly. But maybe that is all part of the divine plan to, you know, do stuff.
Quote from: Viking on May 08, 2012, 10:08:18 AM
Argument from Ignorance. You still have to establish that he exists, loves humanity, has an only begotten son, and that his death is about eternal life.
I thought the base assumptions of this conversation was that the whole thing was true but that his omnipotence would make it impossible to work? :hmm:
Quote from: Valmy on May 08, 2012, 10:21:08 AM
Quote from: DGuller on May 08, 2012, 10:18:14 AM
If he were omnipotent, why couldn't he be less mysterious? It would certainly save us all a lot of miscommunication, and he'd still have his son.
Well he does still have his son, having raised him back from the dead and brought him to heaven.
And if he was less mysterious we would all die horribly from the awesomeness that is God...of course he could have made us able to not die horribly. But maybe that is all part of the divine plan to, you know, do stuff.
eh? He managed perfectly well to speak to adam and eve face to face and speak to all the prophets brain to brain. Just imagine that if every village had it's own little jesus complete with miracles who were sons of god to show off his existingness.
Quote from: Valmy on May 08, 2012, 10:21:08 AM
Well he does still have his son, having raised him back from the dead and brought him to heaven.
Well, that's not really much of a sacrifice then?
Quote from: DGuller on May 08, 2012, 10:24:17 AM
Well, that's not really much of a sacrifice then?
Well no...that is where the whole Nestorian-Monophysite-Orthodox controversy came from right? The less human Jesus is the less the sacrifice appears to be much of a sacrifice but on the other hand if he is too human how is he giving us all eternal life? Sounds like a good reason to break up the Byzantine Empire.
Why are you guys encouraging Viking here? It's like discussing how bad Israel is with Slargos.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 08, 2012, 10:33:56 AM
Why are you guys encouraging Viking here? It's like discussing how bad Israel is with Slargos.
Yeah he really has no sense of humor about this stuff does he?
But still:
Quote from: Viking on May 08, 2012, 10:24:03 AM
eh? He managed perfectly well to speak to adam and eve face to face and speak to all the prophets brain to brain. Just imagine that if every village had it's own little jesus complete with miracles who were sons of god to show off his existingness.
This would be awesome.
Watching Viking argue just makes me miss Hortlund even more. :blush:
Quote from: Valmy on May 08, 2012, 09:53:52 AM
Quote from: derspiess on May 08, 2012, 09:49:09 AM
I PUT MY TIME IN WHEN I WAS A KID. NOW IT'S HIS TURN.
But seriously, my wife has been working Sundays, so I stay home with my 1-year old girl. I could take her with me and drop her off in the nursery while I attend the morning service, but I feel weird doing that.
Why? The going to church alone thing?
No-- I'd sit with my parents, assuming I can pull them away from the "contemporary" service they seem to like these days :mellow:
It's that my daughter is in day care 3 days a week as it is, plus I feel weird telling some volunteer "here's my kid-- you have to watch her while I go sit down somewhere".
On top of that there's a laziness factor on my part. As it is right now, I just have to get Tommy dressed and fed in the morning, and then my parents come pick him up at 9:00am. If I took Lola, I'd have two kids plus myself to get ready.
Quote from: Valmy on May 08, 2012, 10:37:59 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 08, 2012, 10:33:56 AM
Why are you guys encouraging Viking here? It's like discussing how bad Israel is with Slargos.
Yeah he really has no sense of humor about this stuff does he?
Neither does anybody else for that matter. I have been jaded by too many poes on this topic, so I treat them all as serious if they post sans emoticons.
Quote from: Valmy on May 08, 2012, 10:37:59 AM
But still:Quote from: Viking on May 08, 2012, 10:24:03 AM
eh? He managed perfectly well to speak to adam and eve face to face and speak to all the prophets brain to brain. Just imagine that if every village had it's own little jesus complete with miracles who were sons of god to show off his existingness.
This would be awesome.
you, sir, are smarter, more moral, wiser and more loving than the god that insists on us taking life and death choices based on no evidence whatsoever.
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 08, 2012, 10:07:12 AM
Why do you think it's important for him to go to church everyweek but not for you?
It's not that I don't think it's important for me-- it's just that since I want the church to be part of his learning & development I think it's more critical that he go.
QuoteI understand taking care of the other kid but shouldn't Church going be above that?
That's how I see what Scipio is doing.
The simplest answer is that Scip is a much better Christian than I am.
It just occured to me that religion may be God's ultimate test. If you manage to resist indoctrination and realize that atheism is the one true answer, you passed God's test, and you go to Heaven.
Quote from: DGuller on May 08, 2012, 10:49:38 AM
It just occured to me that religion may be God's ultimate test. If you manage to resist indoctrination and realize that atheism is the one true answer, you passed God's test, and you go to Heaven.
Your like the 20,000th guy to suggest that.
Quote from: derspiess on May 08, 2012, 10:48:39 AM
The simplest answer is that Scip is a much better Christian than I am.
Orthos like to think that. It's their schtick.
Quote from: Viking on May 08, 2012, 10:50:31 AM
Quote from: DGuller on May 08, 2012, 10:49:38 AM
It just occured to me that religion may be God's ultimate test. If you manage to resist indoctrination and realize that atheism is the one true answer, you passed God's test, and you go to Heaven.
Your like the 20,000th guy to suggest that.
Burn in hell, you godless freak. :mad:
Quote from: DGuller on May 08, 2012, 10:53:10 AM
Quote from: Viking on May 08, 2012, 10:50:31 AM
Quote from: DGuller on May 08, 2012, 10:49:38 AM
It just occured to me that religion may be God's ultimate test. If you manage to resist indoctrination and realize that atheism is the one true answer, you passed God's test, and you go to Heaven.
Your like the 20,000th guy to suggest that.
Burn in hell, you godless freak. :mad:
Sorry
You're like the 20,000th guy to suggest that.
Don't take it personally, I was just having a second go at trying to come up with something original.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 08, 2012, 10:51:27 AM
Quote from: derspiess on May 08, 2012, 10:48:39 AM
The simplest answer is that Scip is a much better Christian than I am.
Orthos like to think that. It's their schtick.
I actually think he is. I'm too lazy & inattentive.
Quote from: DGuller on May 08, 2012, 10:56:06 AM
Don't take it personally, I was just having a second go at trying to come up with something original.
The thing is that every argument for and against the existence of god apart from the watchmaker argument was fully developed by 270 BC and the watchmaker argument died in 1859.
Quote from: DGuller on May 08, 2012, 10:49:38 AM
It just occured to me that religion may be God's ultimate test. If you manage to resist indoctrination and realize that atheism is the one true answer, you passed God's test, and you go to Heaven.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XefDh9MrtMU
Quote from: Viking on May 08, 2012, 10:54:15 AM
Quote from: DGuller on May 08, 2012, 10:53:10 AM
Quote from: Viking on May 08, 2012, 10:50:31 AM
Quote from: DGuller on May 08, 2012, 10:49:38 AM
It just occured to me that religion may be God's ultimate test. If you manage to resist indoctrination and realize that atheism is the one true answer, you passed God's test, and you go to Heaven.
Your like the 20,000th guy to suggest that.
Burn in hell, you godless freak. :mad:
Sorry
You're like the 20,000th guy to suggest that.
:lol:
Quote from: Viking on May 08, 2012, 10:59:22 AM
Quote from: DGuller on May 08, 2012, 10:56:06 AM
Don't take it personally, I was just having a second go at trying to come up with something original.
The thing is that every argument for and against the existence of god apart from the watchmaker argument was fully developed by 270 BC and the watchmaker argument died in 1859.
I guess in light of that, being the 20,000th guy isn't so bad.
I wonder what they called the watchmaker article before there were watches.
Quote from: Viking on May 08, 2012, 10:59:22 AM
The thing is that every argument for and against the existence of god apart from the watchmaker argument was fully developed by 270 BC and the watchmaker argument died in 1859.
The Unification of Italy proved that no higher power could possibly have put the Universe in motion?
Quote from: Razgovory on May 08, 2012, 11:08:36 AM
I wonder what they called the watchmaker article before there were watches.
Argument from design (http://www.princeton.edu/~grosen/puc/phi203/design.html)
Quote from: Viking on May 08, 2012, 10:42:32 AM
Quote from: Valmy on May 08, 2012, 10:37:59 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 08, 2012, 10:33:56 AM
Why are you guys encouraging Viking here? It's like discussing how bad Israel is with Slargos.
Yeah he really has no sense of humor about this stuff does he?
Neither does anybody else for that matter. I have been jaded by too many poes on this topic, so I treat them all as serious if they post sans emoticons.
No, you're simply hateful. You've been jaded because your hatred makes you say stupid things and then you get called on it.
Quote from: Valmy on May 08, 2012, 11:10:34 AM
Quote from: Viking on May 08, 2012, 10:59:22 AM
The thing is that every argument for and against the existence of god apart from the watchmaker argument was fully developed by 270 BC and the watchmaker argument died in 1859.
The Unification of Italy proved that no higher power could possibly have put the Universe in motion?
The publication of On the Origin of Species (http://www.amazon.com/The-Origin-Species-Charles-Darwin/dp/0517123207)
Edit: Also that no rational higher power would ever permit Italy to reform ;)
Quote from: Viking on May 08, 2012, 11:12:37 AM
The publication of On the Origin of Species (http://www.amazon.com/The-Origin-Species-Charles-Darwin/dp/0517123207)
Why couldn't one say that is part of the mechanism?
Quote from: Razgovory on May 08, 2012, 11:08:36 AM
I wonder what they called the watchmaker article before there were watches.
I believe Aristotle called it the unmoved first mover.
Quote from: Valmy on May 08, 2012, 11:13:21 AM
Quote from: Viking on May 08, 2012, 11:12:37 AM
The publication of On the Origin of Species (http://www.amazon.com/The-Origin-Species-Charles-Darwin/dp/0517123207)
Why couldn't one say that is part of the mechanism?
Yes you can say that. Shooting down the argument from design doesn't disprove god, it merely conclusively removed it as an argument for the existence of god. Basically before 1859 you could argue that the giraffes neck was proof of gods existence because it must have been designed by a mind. Darwin showed that you don't need to get a designer to get diversity of species.
Quote from: Valmy on May 08, 2012, 11:13:21 AM
Quote from: Viking on May 08, 2012, 11:12:37 AM
The publication of On the Origin of Species (http://www.amazon.com/The-Origin-Species-Charles-Darwin/dp/0517123207)
Why couldn't one say that is part of the mechanism?
Why couldn't one say that everything is part of the mechanism or test of faith, including the things Bible and religion got wrong? The problem is that you can't disprove this argument ever.
Quote from: Valmy on May 08, 2012, 11:13:21 AM
Quote from: Viking on May 08, 2012, 11:12:37 AM
The publication of On the Origin of Species (http://www.amazon.com/The-Origin-Species-Charles-Darwin/dp/0517123207)
Why couldn't one say that is part of the mechanism?
I always thought the fixation on Evolution was strange. Why not geology, or linguistics or history?
Quote from: Viking on May 08, 2012, 11:18:37 AM
Yes you can say that. Shooting down the argument from design doesn't disprove god, it merely conclusively removed it as an argument for the existence of god. Basically before 1859 you could argue that the giraffes neck was proof of gods existence because it must have been designed by a mind. Darwin showed that you don't need to get a designer to get diversity of species.
Ah ok. That does make sense. That specific angle on it anyway.
Quote from: DGuller on May 08, 2012, 11:19:29 AM
Why couldn't one say that everything is part of the mechanism or test of faith, including the things Bible and religion got wrong? The problem is that you can't disprove this argument ever.
Well if you accept a specific construct for the universe you have to do this. By definition everything the universe contains must be consistent somehow with what your believe.
But I was specifically referring to the watchmaker idea and how the Origin of Species disproved it.
Quote from: Valmy on May 08, 2012, 11:21:59 AM
Quote from: Viking on May 08, 2012, 11:18:37 AM
Yes you can say that. Shooting down the argument from design doesn't disprove god, it merely conclusively removed it as an argument for the existence of god. Basically before 1859 you could argue that the giraffes neck was proof of gods existence because it must have been designed by a mind. Darwin showed that you don't need to get a designer to get diversity of species.
Ah ok. That does make sense. That specific angle on it anyway.
To be honest before 1859 you could not be an honest well informed rational atheist because of the design argument.
Edit: This is why evolution is the biggie for the creationists if you disprove evolution then they think they can return to the design argument.
Seeing how I don't believe in God I don't go to church except for sightseeing.
If other people believe in God and go to church I respect that. Unless they want to impose their views on me/convert me. Fortunately, most believers aren't like that.
Quote from: Viking on May 08, 2012, 09:55:05 AM
So, God's a dick?
God's incomprehensible. God's not not a dick.
QuoteClaiming that one cannot understand god's ways is the equivalent of refusing to show your work on a math exam.
No it's not. Theology's not a maths exam. It's impossible for us to understand an omnipotent, omnipresent thing. Religion accepts that and wonders in it. Theology's our human construct around what is, ultimately, a mystery.
QuoteThe thing is that every argument for and against the existence of god apart from the watchmaker argument was fully developed by 270 BC and the watchmaker argument died in 1859.
There's no argument for or against. Even Dawkins says he's only an agnostic. It's unprovable, you either believe or you don't.
QuoteI believe Aristotle called it the unmoved first mover.
That's always been my favourite.
QuoteI always thought the fixation on Evolution was strange. Why not geology, or linguistics or history?
We only notice it because creationists keep it going. In the 19th century geology and linguistics were hugely controversial because of their implications for the Bible. A lot of Tennyson's doubting verse in 'In Memoriam' is about geology. On the one hand it undermined traditional interpretations of the Bible, on the other it's seen as demonstrating a more rational comprehensible God. That the physical world makes sense is a consolation in a grief as well as a challenge to the old spiritual order's reassurance.
Quote from: Viking on May 08, 2012, 11:34:47 AM
To be honest before 1859 you could not be an honest well informed rational atheist because of the design argument.
Edit: This is why evolution is the biggie for the creationists if you disprove evolution then they think they can return to the design argument.
The design argument only works for biology? Nothing about physics or chemistry?
Quote from: Razgovory on May 08, 2012, 12:40:34 PM
Quote from: Viking on May 08, 2012, 11:34:47 AM
To be honest before 1859 you could not be an honest well informed rational atheist because of the design argument.
Edit: This is why evolution is the biggie for the creationists if you disprove evolution then they think they can return to the design argument.
The design argument only works for biology? Nothing about physics or chemistry?
Biology was the last bastion of design to fall. The physical universe had already been shown to be free of miracles. Newtons clockwork universe applied to physics and chemistry as well. Once Darwin had published no detail in the universe needed god to explain it. In physics and chemistry you could actually write down equations that accurately and repeatedly predicted the location of the heavenly bodies and the ammount of product you get from a reaction. There was no place for god there. Biology was last because life appeared to be special somehow and it's variation was seen as a part of a plan, given that every life form was so well adapted to its environment. Darwin showed that you need no plan and life will adapt itself to the environment it inhabits.
Quote from: DGuller on May 08, 2012, 10:49:38 AM
It just occured to me that religion may be God's ultimate test. If you manage to resist indoctrination and realize that atheism is the one true answer, you passed God's test, and you go to Heaven.
Isn't that mass effect 3?
Quote from: Viking on May 08, 2012, 01:10:08 PM
Once Darwin had published no detail in the universe needed god to explain it.
Whille I am not declaring we need God to explain anything you are talking as if every single thing in the Universe has been figured out, or was figured out by 1859, and there were/are no mysteries left.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 08, 2012, 12:39:05 PM
Quote from: Viking on May 08, 2012, 09:55:05 AM
So, God's a dick?
God's incomprehensible. God's not not a dick.
How do you know that?
Why is god incomprehensible when he condemns at least 3/4 of humanity to torment in hell but you can somehow comprehend that god doesn't hate fags anymore despite it being pretty damn clear in his book what you should do with them? That's pretty hypocritical. The Incomprahensability argument is a copout to deal with theodecy, a pretty pathetic one at that. It is the last defense of the beliver when reason logic and argument fails. The "I can't explain it but I'm sure god is doing it for his own munificent reasons" type of defense is there to deal with the cognitie dissonance caused by reality clashing with theology.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 08, 2012, 12:39:05 PM
QuoteClaiming that one cannot understand god's ways is the equivalent of refusing to show your work on a math exam.
No it's not. Theology's not a maths exam. It's impossible for us to understand an omnipotent, omnipresent thing. Religion accepts that and wonders in it. Theology's our human construct around what is, ultimately, a mystery.
It's just like not showing your work in a math exam. Religion claims to know truth but refuses to explain itself. Why does god do x is the equivalent of where do the trains travelling from new york and boston meet. Claiming that gods ways are mysterious is just like answering 500km without showing how you got that answer. The mysterious ways argument is not an argument for anything it is merely a copout for those who cannot explain or justify their dogma.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 08, 2012, 12:39:05 PM
QuoteThe thing is that every argument for and against the existence of god apart from the watchmaker argument was fully developed by 270 BC and the watchmaker argument died in 1859.
There's no argument for or against. Even Dawkins says he's only an agnostic. It's unprovable, you either believe or you don't.
thats just stupid. There are arguments for and against true and false propositions. These arguments can be valid, unvalid, strong or weak. Dawkins agrees with Russel that he can't disprove the teapot, that is all. It's the philosophically valid statement consistent with theory of knowledge.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 08, 2012, 12:39:05 PM
QuoteI believe Aristotle called it the unmoved first mover.
That's always been my favourite.
My favourite counter to that is Infinite Regress.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 08, 2012, 12:39:05 PM
QuoteI always thought the fixation on Evolution was strange. Why not geology, or linguistics or history?
We only notice it because creationists keep it going. In the 19th century geology and linguistics were hugely controversial because of their implications for the Bible. A lot of Tennyson's doubting verse in 'In Memoriam' is about geology. On the one hand it undermined traditional interpretations of the Bible, on the other it's seen as demonstrating a more rational comprehensible God. That the physical world makes sense is a consolation in a grief as well as a challenge to the old spiritual order's reassurance.
Newton was just as much of a shock to the interventionist god. As I said above Darwin smashes the designer god's last gap to hide in, that is why evolution is so vindictively opposed, in addition to evolution directly contradicting much more of the bible than newtons mechanics does.
Quote from: Valmy on May 08, 2012, 01:23:55 PM
Quote from: Viking on May 08, 2012, 01:10:08 PM
Once Darwin had published no detail in the universe needed god to explain it.
Whille I am not declaring we need God to explain anything you are talking as if every single thing in the Universe has been figured out, or was figured out by 1859, and there were/are no mysteries left.
I am not claiming that there were no mysteries left. I am just claiming that there were no longer any answers about the material world to be found in theology. We had answered all the questions that the jews of babylon had managed to think of and give "god did it" as an answer.
Quote from: Viking on May 08, 2012, 01:10:08 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 08, 2012, 12:40:34 PM
Quote from: Viking on May 08, 2012, 11:34:47 AM
To be honest before 1859 you could not be an honest well informed rational atheist because of the design argument.
Edit: This is why evolution is the biggie for the creationists if you disprove evolution then they think they can return to the design argument.
The design argument only works for biology? Nothing about physics or chemistry?
Biology was the last bastion of design to fall. The physical universe had already been shown to be free of miracles. Newtons clockwork universe applied to physics and chemistry as well. Once Darwin had published no detail in the universe needed god to explain it. In physics and chemistry you could actually write down equations that accurately and repeatedly predicted the location of the heavenly bodies and the ammount of product you get from a reaction. There was no place for god there. Biology was last because life appeared to be special somehow and it's variation was seen as a part of a plan, given that every life form was so well adapted to its environment. Darwin showed that you need no plan and life will adapt itself to the environment it inhabits.
No questions left in physics after 1859? Nobody asks why physical constants are the way they are? Well I'll be damned.
Quote from: Valmy on May 08, 2012, 01:23:55 PM
Whille I am not declaring we need God to explain anything you are talking as if every single thing in the Universe has been figured out, or was figured out by 1859, and there were/are no mysteries left.
And that the only purpose of God/religion was to explain things. It's a very odd version of faith.
QuoteHow do you know that?
Because God's an omnipotent, omnipresent being; the Alpha and the Omega. Now maybe you're able to understand that, but I doubt it. I can't.
The incomprehensibility argument isn't a pathetic cop-out or even really an argument, it's the first principle of faith. A sort of humility in front of mystery. I don't think we can even say God is good, or omnipotent - those are human terms. The best we can approach is that God is not not good and so on.
I'm sure my Biblical knowledge is less than yours so I'll leave that to you.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 08, 2012, 01:32:57 PM
No questions left in physics after 1859? Nobody asks why physical constants are the way they are? Well I'll be damned.
We always reach this point were you blatantly misrepresent me. This is what I said
Quote from: Viking on May 08, 2012, 01:10:08 PM
Once Darwin had published no detail in the universe needed god to explain it.
As Hitchens likes to quip, I call upon the honesty of the audience to decide, did I claim that there were no questions in physics left in 1859 or did I assert that theology did not answer any of them?
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 08, 2012, 01:33:40 PM
Quote from: Valmy on May 08, 2012, 01:23:55 PM
Whille I am not declaring we need God to explain anything you are talking as if every single thing in the Universe has been figured out, or was figured out by 1859, and there were/are no mysteries left.
And that the only purpose of God/religion was to explain things. It's a very odd version of faith.
"only purpose" ? Valmy said no such thing. However explaining shit is most certainly one of the most important functions religion. The explanations are usually formulated in a manner to get people to make offerings, yes, but explanations they are non-the-less.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 08, 2012, 01:33:40 PM
QuoteHow do you know that?
Because God's an omnipotent, omnipresent being; the Alpha and the Omega. Now maybe you're able to understand that, but I doubt it. I can't.
The incomprehensibility argument isn't a pathetic cop-out or even really an argument, it's the first principle of faith. A sort of humility in front of mystery. I don't think we can even say God is good, or omnipotent - those are human terms. The best we can approach is that God is not not good and so on.
I'm sure my Biblical knowledge is less than yours so I'll leave that to you.
It is a copout for the simple reason that the idiocy of the incomprahensability argument necessitates the end of inquiry. Inquiry itself becomes impious. It is the little brat claiming that the majesty of his calculations are such that they are incomprehensible to the teacher so the teacher must just accept his answer to be true.
Furthermore the religious actually do believe that he is good and omnipotent, without those beliefs their faith is pointless. Claiming that god is neither good and/or ominpotent contradicts all abrahamic religions.
Okay Viking how could physics be considered "free of miracles" if it isn't fully understood?
Why does this interest you so much, Vike?
I'm sort of losing focus. The watchmaker argument is essentially a naturalist one, it doesn't need overt miracles.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 08, 2012, 01:50:13 PM
Okay Viking how could physics be considered "free of miracles" if it isn't fully understood?
Because magic ceased to be an acceptible explanation. God did it was no longer an explanation of anything.
Quote from: derspiess on May 08, 2012, 01:52:17 PM
Why does this interest you so much, Vike?
Cause he's a bigot. He hates religion. And doesn't think the religious people should be given peace.
QuoteThis is yet another reason why the religious should not be left in peace with their faith.
http://languish.org/forums/index.php/topic,4746.180.html
Quote from: Viking on May 08, 2012, 02:11:35 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 08, 2012, 01:50:13 PM
Okay Viking how could physics be considered "free of miracles" if it isn't fully understood?
Because magic ceased to be an acceptible explanation. God did it was no longer an explanation of anything.
That doesn't answer my question. How did they come to this conclusion?
Quote from: Razgovory on May 08, 2012, 02:07:30 PM
I'm sort of losing focus. The watchmaker argument is essentially a naturalist one, it doesn't need overt miracles.
Well no. The watchmaker argument is that the world is so perfect because of miracle and the perfectness of the world is proof of the the fact of miracle. The giraffe has a long necked because god created the giraffe to have a long neck. The fish swims well because it was created by god to be a good swimmer. The sun is the way it is to give the earth a pleasant and temperate climate. The moon is the way it is to create the tides for shipping and other reasons with never a miscommunication. God made all these things the way they are and the goodness and virtue of the world is proof of gods goodness and virtue.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 08, 2012, 02:11:42 PM
Quote from: derspiess on May 08, 2012, 01:52:17 PM
Why does this interest you so much, Vike?
Cause he's a bigot. He hates religion. And doesn't think the religious people should be given peace.
QuoteThis is yet another reason why the religious should not be left in peace with their faith.
http://languish.org/forums/index.php/topic,4746.180.html
Yes, Religion is not an excuse for anything, including the torture of cats. The torture of cats cannot be excused by religion. I hate religion in the same way Jefferson and Lincoln did. They saw it as a mockery of reason and human dignity. I agree with them on that.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 08, 2012, 02:13:03 PM
That doesn't answer my question. How did they come to this conclusion?
Because religion got the answer wrong every time when they finally found the answer. To paraphrase Laplace, they no longer needed god as a hypothesis, they had found real answers to how the heavens work, where lightning comes from and what causes storms.
Quote from: Viking on May 08, 2012, 01:49:27 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 08, 2012, 01:33:40 PM
Quote from: Valmy on May 08, 2012, 01:23:55 PM
Whille I am not declaring we need God to explain anything you are talking as if every single thing in the Universe has been figured out, or was figured out by 1859, and there were/are no mysteries left.
And that the only purpose of God/religion was to explain things. It's a very odd version of faith.
"only purpose" ? Valmy said no such thing. However explaining shit is most certainly one of the most important functions religion. The explanations are usually formulated in a manner to get people to make offerings, yes, but explanations they are non-the-less.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 08, 2012, 01:33:40 PM
QuoteHow do you know that?
Because God's an omnipotent, omnipresent being; the Alpha and the Omega. Now maybe you're able to understand that, but I doubt it. I can't.
The incomprehensibility argument isn't a pathetic cop-out or even really an argument, it's the first principle of faith. A sort of humility in front of mystery. I don't think we can even say God is good, or omnipotent - those are human terms. The best we can approach is that God is not not good and so on.
I'm sure my Biblical knowledge is less than yours so I'll leave that to you.
It is a copout for the simple reason that the idiocy of the incomprahensability argument necessitates the end of inquiry. Inquiry itself becomes impious. It is the little brat claiming that the majesty of his calculations are such that they are incomprehensible to the teacher so the teacher must just accept his answer to be true.
Furthermore the religious actually do believe that he is good and omnipotent, without those beliefs their faith is pointless. Claiming that god is neither good and/or ominpotent contradicts all abrahamic religions.
I love it when people like Valmy or Sheilbh engage Viking on religion. You can just tell that Viking wishes he was debating a fundamentalist. :)
God may be incomprehensible - but that is far from saying that you can not or should not try and understand the workings of the universe or the Allmighty. Indeed I've heard some say that exploring the inner working of the submolecular world is just a way of trying to better understand God and his creation.
Quote from: Viking on May 08, 2012, 02:20:38 PM
Yes, Religion is not an excuse for anything, including the torture of cats. The torture of cats cannot be excused by religion. I hate religion in the same way Jefferson and Lincoln did. They saw it as a mockery of reason and human dignity. I agree with them on that.
Leaving aside the Lincoln/Jefferson troll bait, if I were an atheist I'd probably have nothing to do with religious discussions, as they wouldn't interest me in the slightest. I'm curious to know where certain atheists' hostility towards religion comes from. Did religion cause harm to you in some significant manner, to where you think you have to fight back against it?
Quote from: Barrister on May 08, 2012, 02:28:18 PM
I love it when people like Valmy or Sheilbh engage Viking on religion. You can just tell that Viking wishes he was debating a fundamentalist. :)
Well yes. I can respect a fundamentalist. I feel a bit soiled when taking on the issue with people who treat their religion as a buffet. If god did exist that fact would be the most significant fact in history and that fact would be not only relevant to every issue but decisive on every issue. I can't help but lose respect for people who claim to have faith but then not only disregard god and his commandments but then seek to impose their own values and view on him. If god says kill the gays then kill the gays you must. If god commands you to sell all your wealth and leave your family to follow him then you must sell and abandon.
I can't respect people who don't have the courage of their own supposed convictions. God had a book written for you with lots of laws and rules and regulations for mankind. It's intellectually dishonest to run around pretending that god didn't mean it when he made eating lobster a capital offense.
Quote from: Barrister on May 08, 2012, 02:28:18 PM
God may be incomprehensible - but that is far from saying that you can not or should not try and understand the workings of the universe or the Allmighty. Indeed I've heard some say that exploring the inner working of the submolecular world is just a way of trying to better understand God and his creation.
Again, this is a poor argument for anything. I can be pretty sure that those who said that about the sub molecular world didn't know what they were talking about. Deepak Chopra and his ilk are mendacious charlatans. Arguing that God is incomprehensible is the god of the gaps argument writ large. If it doesn't make sense or is malicious or is illogical or inconsistent with what god commanded in the last chapter then the incomprahensiability argument is brought out.
Quote from: Viking on May 08, 2012, 02:20:38 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 08, 2012, 02:11:42 PM
Quote from: derspiess on May 08, 2012, 01:52:17 PM
Why does this interest you so much, Vike?
Cause he's a bigot. He hates religion. And doesn't think the religious people should be given peace.
QuoteThis is yet another reason why the religious should not be left in peace with their faith.
http://languish.org/forums/index.php/topic,4746.180.html
Yes, Religion is not an excuse for anything, including the torture of cats. The torture of cats cannot be excused by religion. I hate religion in the same way Jefferson and Lincoln did. They saw it as a mockery of reason and human dignity. I agree with them on that.
That's sort of a false dichotomy don't you think? I really don't know any religion that condones the torture of cats. The only people I know of that torture cats are sadists and researchers. Besides, I don't recall Lincoln ever "hating" religion. In fact, evidence of atheism seems to be second hand.
QuoteDid religion cause harm to you in some significant manner, to where you think you have to fight back against it?
Religious people will shamelessly impose their morality on others given half a chance. That's reason enough.
Not to mention they made me waste a lot of hours of my youth, thanks to Catholic indoctrination in public schools (paid for with our taxes!).
Quote from: derspiess on May 08, 2012, 02:42:09 PM
Leaving aside the Lincoln/Jefferson troll bait, if I were an atheist I'd probably have nothing to do with religious discussions, as they wouldn't interest me in the slightest. I'm curious to know where certain atheists' hostility towards religion comes from. Did religion cause harm to you in some significant manner, to where you think you have to fight back against it?
No man exists in vacuum. Religion affects other people, and other people in turn affect you. Some of the ways religion affects other people are definitely not positive.
Quote from: Viking on May 08, 2012, 02:42:41 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 08, 2012, 02:28:18 PM
I love it when people like Valmy or Sheilbh engage Viking on religion. You can just tell that Viking wishes he was debating a fundamentalist. :)
Well yes. I can respect a fundamentalist. I feel a bit soiled when taking on the issue with people who treat their religion as a buffet. If god did exist that fact would be the most significant fact in history and that fact would be not only relevant to every issue but decisive on every issue. I can't help but lose respect for people who claim to have faith but then not only disregard god and his commandments but then seek to impose their own values and view on him. If god says kill the gays then kill the gays you must. If god commands you to sell all your wealth and leave your family to follow him then you must sell and abandon.
I can't respect people who don't have the courage of their own supposed convictions. God had a book written for you with lots of laws and rules and regulations for mankind. It's intellectually dishonest to run around pretending that god didn't mean it when he made eating lobster a capital offense.
:lol: Well I didn't think you'd actually admit it.
You remind me of a friend of mine from university. He was an evangelical, but he also loved a good rip-roaring debate where he'd refuse to give an inch. Which meant he loved to argue why evolution was wrong.
At the time I was studying geology. So a couple of times I wanted to argue how zircon dating had pretty conclusively shown the world was a hell of a lot older than 5000 years. But do you think I could get him to debate zircon dating? Of course not - he'd always go back to what he knew, which was evolution.
You don't know what the arguments against more liberal christian theology are, so you just call us "intellectually dishonest" because you'd prefer to argue about biblical literalism. :cool:
Quote from: Viking on May 08, 2012, 02:42:41 PM
Well yes. I can respect a fundamentalist.
:bleeding: xinfinity
What a load of absurd bullshit.
QuoteYou don't know what the arguments against more liberal christian theology are, so you just call us "intellectually dishonest" because you'd prefer to argue about biblical literalism.
Heh. Yep.
Quote from: Viking on May 08, 2012, 02:42:41 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 08, 2012, 02:28:18 PM
I love it when people like Valmy or Sheilbh engage Viking on religion. You can just tell that Viking wishes he was debating a fundamentalist. :)
Well yes. I can respect a fundamentalist. I feel a bit soiled when taking on the issue with people who treat their religion as a buffet. If god did exist that fact would be the most significant fact in history and that fact would be not only relevant to every issue but decisive on every issue. I can't help but lose respect for people who claim to have faith but then not only disregard god and his commandments but then seek to impose their own values and view on him. If god says kill the gays then kill the gays you must. If god commands you to sell all your wealth and leave your family to follow him then you must sell and abandon.
I can't respect people who don't have the courage of their own supposed convictions. God had a book written for you with lots of laws and rules and regulations for mankind. It's intellectually dishonest to run around pretending that god didn't mean it when he made eating lobster a capital offense.
Quote from: Barrister on May 08, 2012, 02:28:18 PM
God may be incomprehensible - but that is far from saying that you can not or should not try and understand the workings of the universe or the Allmighty. Indeed I've heard some say that exploring the inner working of the submolecular world is just a way of trying to better understand God and his creation.
Again, this is a poor argument for anything. I can be pretty sure that those who said that about the sub molecular world didn't know what they were talking about. Deepak Chopra and his ilk are mendacious charlatans. Arguing that God is incomprehensible is the god of the gaps argument writ large. If it doesn't make sense or is malicious or is illogical or inconsistent with what god commanded in the last chapter then the incomprahensiability argument is brought out.
You prefer the fundamentalist cause they better fit your straw man attacks. You might find this surprising but very serious people have had disagreements of faith and written a great deal about it. This causes a great deal of difference in doctrines that are no more or less honestly held then a bible literalist. This subtly causes difficulty when you try to pigeonhole someone. Dawkins has the same problem, he lazily shrugs it off saying he doesn't believe it so he need not waste time learning what he's actually arguing against. Instead he creates an idea of religion in his head and argues against that. In that way he's no better then a creationist who doesn't actually understand the theory of Evolution.
Quote from: Iormlund on May 08, 2012, 02:47:27 PM
Religious people will shamelessly impose their morality on others given half a chance. That's reason enough.
While I certainly oppose this sort of thing there are lots of people wanting to impose things on others. What about religious people who do not want to imposed morality on others? Guilt by association?
Quote from: derspiess on May 08, 2012, 02:42:09 PM
Leaving aside the Lincoln/Jefferson troll bait, if I were an atheist I'd probably have nothing to do with religious discussions, as they wouldn't interest me in the slightest. I'm curious to know where certain atheists' hostility towards religion comes from. Did religion cause harm to you in some significant manner, to where you think you have to fight back against it?
I care about religion for the same reason I care about politics; because it affects me too. I prefer truth to fantasy and I prefer to live in a society where others prefer truth to fantasy. Your religion does affect me when it flies planes into buildings, sabotages stemm cell research, takes my tax kroner and convinces people that morality can be found in a book.
Religion is an untruth that affects me. If it didn't affect me then I wouldn't care. I am militant on the issue for the simple reason that religious demand that I do not challenge their dogma when they advocate for it. The religion spat here started when AmScip called soviet communism a form of secular humanism. That's not me attacking religion, that the religious attacking dogma free government.
Quote from: Viking on May 08, 2012, 02:23:46 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 08, 2012, 02:13:03 PM
That doesn't answer my question. How did they come to this conclusion?
Because religion got the answer wrong every time when they finally found the answer. To paraphrase Laplace, they no longer needed god as a hypothesis, they had found real answers to how the heavens work, where lightning comes from and what causes storms.
I don't recall the bible saying that much about where lighting comes from.
Quote from: Viking on May 08, 2012, 02:58:36 PM
Quote from: derspiess on May 08, 2012, 02:42:09 PM
Leaving aside the Lincoln/Jefferson troll bait, if I were an atheist I'd probably have nothing to do with religious discussions, as they wouldn't interest me in the slightest. I'm curious to know where certain atheists' hostility towards religion comes from. Did religion cause harm to you in some significant manner, to where you think you have to fight back against it?
I care about religion for the same reason I care about politics; because it affects me too. I prefer truth to fantasy and I prefer to live in a society where others prefer truth to fantasy. Your religion does affect me when it flies planes into buildings, sabotages stemm cell research, takes my tax kroner and convinces people that morality can be found in a book.
Religion is an untruth that affects me. If it didn't affect me then I wouldn't care. I am militant on the issue for the simple reason that religious demand that I do not challenge their dogma when they advocate for it. The religion spat here started when AmScip called soviet communism a form of secular humanism. That's not me attacking religion, that the religious attacking dogma free government.
Wait, Derspeiss's religion taxes your kroners and fly planes into buildings? Also who has a "Dogma" free government?
Quote from: Viking on May 08, 2012, 02:58:36 PM
Quote from: derspiess on May 08, 2012, 02:42:09 PM
Leaving aside the Lincoln/Jefferson troll bait, if I were an atheist I'd probably have nothing to do with religious discussions, as they wouldn't interest me in the slightest. I'm curious to know where certain atheists' hostility towards religion comes from. Did religion cause harm to you in some significant manner, to where you think you have to fight back against it?
I care about religion for the same reason I care about politics; because it affects me too. I prefer truth to fantasy and I prefer to live in a society where others prefer truth to fantasy. Your religion does affect me when it flies planes into buildings, sabotages stemm cell research, takes my tax kroner and convinces people that morality can be found in a book.
Religion is an untruth that affects me. If it didn't affect me then I wouldn't care. I am militant on the issue for the simple reason that religious demand that I do not challenge their dogma when they advocate for it. The religion spat here started when AmScip called soviet communism a form of secular humanism. That's not me attacking religion, that the religious attacking dogma free government.
Communist governments were a form of secular humanism. But there are other forms as well. Much like there are multiple forms of religions. :huh:
Quote from: Barrister on May 08, 2012, 02:51:33 PM
:lol: Well I didn't think you'd actually admit it.
I do carry the courage of my convictions.
Quote from: Barrister on May 08, 2012, 02:51:33 PM
You remind me of a friend of mine from university. He was an evangelical, but he also loved a good rip-roaring debate where he'd refuse to give an inch. Which meant he loved to argue why evolution was wrong.
At the time I was studying geology. So a couple of times I wanted to argue how zircon dating had pretty conclusively shown the world was a hell of a lot older than 5000 years. But do you think I could get him to debate zircon dating? Of course not - he'd always go back to what he knew, which was evolution.
It's not about preferring to argue with fundamentalists over liberals, but rather the fundamentalists are honest. They stand their intellectual ground and argue with conviction for what they believe to be true.
Quote from: Barrister on May 08, 2012, 02:51:33 PM
You don't know what the arguments against more liberal christian theology are, so you just call us "intellectually dishonest" because you'd prefer to argue about biblical literalism. :cool:
I called the act of ignoring the death penalty for shrimp cocktails intellectually dishonest. The act is intellectually dishonest not the person. The person might be doing it honestly. The liberal christian theologian that preaches the virtue of crab sticks is intellectually dishonest.
The podcast "The history of philosophy without any gaps" just had an episode on Philo of Alexandria who was the first liberal (albeit jewish) theologian for anybody interested in the topic. I highly recommend it.
The issue with the liberal theologians is that when confronted with an obvious untruth or immorality in the bible they call it allegorical or symbolic or spiritual asserting that what the bible says is not what it means. Then the make their own assertions, usually using som monstrously convoluted logic, that could have been cut and pasted from the relevant branch of philosophy.
What I don't understand is how the liberal theolgian knows which passages are true and which ones are allegorical. I don't understand how he can assert that he who belives in him shall be granted everlasting life is true but the shellfish bit isn't.
Quote from: Viking on May 08, 2012, 01:49:27 PM
It is a copout for the simple reason that the idiocy of the incomprahensability argument necessitates the end of inquiry. Inquiry itself becomes impious. It is the little brat claiming that the majesty of his calculations are such that they are incomprehensible to the teacher so the teacher must just accept his answer to be true.
I'd say it's the intellectual equivalent of 'render unto Caesar'. Inquiring greatly into the nature of God isn't terribly helpful, or plausible because of the incomprehensibility of God as a concept. I think this is one of the very attractive features of Islam. With Christianity there is Christ who is God that we can grasp towards comprehending because he's fully man, but beyond that saying you can comprehend God is like saying you can comprehend infinity.
So incomprehensibility is an end to inquiry into the nature of God and replaces it with, as I say, a sort of humble wonder. But it doesn't end inquiry into anything else.
QuoteFurthermore the religious actually do believe that he is good and omnipotent, without those beliefs their faith is pointless. Claiming that god is neither good and/or ominpotent contradicts all abrahamic religions.
That's not what I'm claiming. What I said was that good and omnipotent are human terms. If they are true of God then they are on such a cosmic scale that we cannot comprehend them. What can 'good' mean when discussing God. Therefore the only way to appropriately use those terms is to use them in such a way that distances us from them, that makes us aware of how alien they are when applied to God. Thus God is not not good. This isn't contradictory to Abrahamic faith, it's an argument and phrases from early Greek Orthodox theologians and has been used by others.
Quote from: Valmy on May 08, 2012, 09:26:19 AM
Quote from: grumbler on May 08, 2012, 09:24:14 AM
Yeah, that one and the one where Frodo travels all the way to the Crack of Doom and then doesn't throw the ring in. I didn't get that one, either.
Again, probably a plot necessity.
What do you mean? That was obvious. His personal will was overwhelmed by the power of the Ring.
Jesus, or Frodo?
Quote from: Valmy on May 08, 2012, 02:57:09 PM
Quote from: Iormlund on May 08, 2012, 02:47:27 PM
Religious people will shamelessly impose their morality on others given half a chance. That's reason enough.
While I certainly oppose this sort of thing there are lots of people wanting to impose things on others. What about religious people who do not want to imposed morality on others? Guilt by association?
Religious folks who don't vote for candidates who include a return to "family values" and won't indoctrinate their children are rare enough for me to have met any in real life. But I guess they might exist.
Quote from: grumbler on May 08, 2012, 03:16:00 PM
Jesus, or Frodo?
Frodo. Jesus was overcome with being tempted by Martin Scorsese.
Quote from: Valmy on May 08, 2012, 10:26:50 AM
Quote from: DGuller on May 08, 2012, 10:24:17 AM
Well, that's not really much of a sacrifice then?
Well no...that is where the whole Nestorian-Monophysite-Orthodox controversy came from right? The less human Jesus is the less the sacrifice appears to be much of a sacrifice but on the other hand if he is too human how is he giving us all eternal life? Sounds like a good reason to break up the Byzantine Empire.
:lol:
Quote from: Valmy on May 08, 2012, 02:57:09 PM
Quote from: Iormlund on May 08, 2012, 02:47:27 PM
Religious people will shamelessly impose their morality on others given half a chance. That's reason enough.
While I certainly oppose this sort of thing there are lots of people wanting to impose things on others. What about religious people who do not want to imposed morality on others? Guilt by association?
Moderates serve to perpetuate and protect the religious whackjobs out there. It's guilt by association because you choose to associate with the nutjobs and you act to protect them from righteous criticism. Sam Harris says it better than I do (the link is not too long)
http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Secular-Philosophies/The-Problem-With-Religious-Moderates.aspx
Moderates are the levees in their own self declared defensive war on religion when the nutjobs are under attack.
And I think when we talk about incomprehensibility it's worth remembering the etymology of comprehend. It's from the Latin and means to seize or to grasp - mentally be able to circumscribe and lay hold on an argument is to comprehend it. Comprehension of divinity is impossible precisely because it is limitless in every way we can imagine.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 08, 2012, 10:51:27 AM
Quote from: derspiess on May 08, 2012, 10:48:39 AM
The simplest answer is that Scip is a much better Christian than I am.
Orthos like to think that. It's their schtick.
If your church ain't apostolic, it ain't a church. Or, as I told my friend the Methodist minister: you may have a church, but you have no ecclesia.
He was not amused.
But it's not about being a better Christian. It's about a non-juridical perspective on salvation. God is not some accountant tabulating our sins on some arcane abacus to determine whether we are worthy of salvation, and it is not my place to opine on someone else's salvation (as opposed to being obligated to correct wrong behaviour). As I've gotten older and learned more about Christianity and humanity, I have strived to become less and less judgmental. Being married to someone who is as low-church Protestant as you can get also helps.
Even if you merely consider religion as an FAQ for dealing with reality, I could do much worse than the Orthodox Church in America. As Enoch Root said in Cryptonomicon, Churches used to be the retail outlet of philosophy. There is a great deal of intellectual depth to a large number of Christian teachings, and considering them as a moral philosophy as part of the Christian life should not be derided as a bad thing. Some of us are Nietzschean supermen, creating our own moral universes. I am not.
Quote from: Iormlund on May 08, 2012, 03:17:55 PM
Quote from: Valmy on May 08, 2012, 02:57:09 PM
Quote from: Iormlund on May 08, 2012, 02:47:27 PM
Religious people will shamelessly impose their morality on others given half a chance. That's reason enough.
While I certainly oppose this sort of thing there are lots of people wanting to impose things on others. What about religious people who do not want to imposed morality on others? Guilt by association?
Religious folks who don't vote for candidates who include a return to "family values" and won't indoctrinate their children are rare enough for me to have met any in real life. But I guess they might exist.
Is it the indoctrination itself that bothers you, or are you just concerned over the values with which they happen to be indoctrinating their kids?
Quote from: Viking on May 08, 2012, 11:18:37 AM
Yes you can say that. Shooting down the argument from design doesn't disprove god, it merely conclusively removed it as an argument for the existence of god. Basically before 1859 you could argue that the giraffes neck was proof of gods existence because it must have been designed by a mind. Darwin showed that you don't need to get a designer to get diversity of species.
The watchmaker god idea wasn't related to argument from design. The watchmaker god idea was that the mere existence of the watch implies a watchmaker. I'd say that the watchmaker god concept was mostly invalidated by the discovery of evidence for the Big Bang theory.
Quote from: Viking on May 08, 2012, 03:20:44 PM
Moderates are the levees in their own self declared defensive war on religion when the nutjobs are under attack.
Typical extremist attacks on the via media :P
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 08, 2012, 03:15:17 PM
Quote from: Viking on May 08, 2012, 01:49:27 PM
It is a copout for the simple reason that the idiocy of the incomprahensability argument necessitates the end of inquiry. Inquiry itself becomes impious. It is the little brat claiming that the majesty of his calculations are such that they are incomprehensible to the teacher so the teacher must just accept his answer to be true.
I'd say it's the intellectual equivalent of 'render unto Caesar'. Inquiring greatly into the nature of God isn't terribly helpful, or plausible because of the incomprehensibility of God as a concept. I think this is one of the very attractive features of Islam. With Christianity there is Christ who is God that we can grasp towards comprehending because he's fully man, but beyond that saying you can comprehend God is like saying you can comprehend infinity.
So incomprehensibility is an end to inquiry into the nature of God and replaces it with, as I say, a sort of humble wonder. But it doesn't end inquiry in to anything else.
The thing here is that Islam fell prey to occasionalism which renderd all inquiry pointless. Just imagine the scientific paper which has to include as possible sources of uncertainty the uncomprehensible will of god and you might understand the problem here.
Asserting the incomprahensability of god is absurd when you at the same time assert that there are things that are comprehensible viz your won religious dogma. You can't assert that so much did god love mankind that he sent his only begotten son to die so that those who belive in him shall be granted eternal life while at the same time claiming that his ways are mysterious. It is in effect asserting that your conclusions are true and refusing to answer any questions apart from repeating your own assertions. It is intellectual servility.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 08, 2012, 03:15:17 PM
QuoteFurthermore the religious actually do believe that he is good and omnipotent, without those beliefs their faith is pointless. Claiming that god is neither good and/or ominpotent contradicts all abrahamic religions.
That's not what I'm claiming. What I said was that good and omnipotent are human terms. If they are true of God then they are on such a cosmic scale that we cannot comprehend them. What can 'good' mean when discussing God. Therefore the only way to appropriately use those terms is to use them in such a way that distances us from them, that makes us aware of how alien they are when applied to God. Thus God is not not good. This isn't contradictory to Abrahamic faith, it's an argument and phrases from early Greek Orthodox theologians and has been used by others.
Again, when you can't explain something you claim incomprehensability, then you assert other things about god. You are basically saying that the description of god uses words that don't mean what they usually mean. Your religion falls apart at that point you are basically saying that there is no connection between the meaning of the words used and the content of the message. You cannot assert that some parts are incomprehensible and other parts are clear and obvious without some way of differentiating between the two.
Quote from: grumbler on May 08, 2012, 03:26:18 PM
Quote from: Viking on May 08, 2012, 11:18:37 AM
Yes you can say that. Shooting down the argument from design doesn't disprove god, it merely conclusively removed it as an argument for the existence of god. Basically before 1859 you could argue that the giraffes neck was proof of gods existence because it must have been designed by a mind. Darwin showed that you don't need to get a designer to get diversity of species.
The watchmaker god idea wasn't related to argument from design. The watchmaker god idea was that the mere existence of the watch implies a watchmaker. I'd say that the watchmaker god concept was mostly invalidated by the discovery of evidence for the Big Bang theory.
The mere existence of the watch implies the watchmaker because the watch needed making. The making of the watch is the miracle. The Big Bang does not suggest that there is no god nor is it an argument against design. When the pope first heard of the big bang he was very happy because it had a beginning and was in that sense consistent with the bible unlike the steady state universe which the big bang theory superceded. The big bang actually opened up for a return of design in the form of guided evolution. God created the giraffe with a long neck by setting the fundamental constants of the universe at the time of the big bang etc.
So, no you are wrong.
Quote from: derspiess on May 08, 2012, 03:23:57 PM
Is it the indoctrination itself that bothers you, or are you just concerned over the values with which they happen to be indoctrinating their kids?
Instilling morals at an early age is a natural mechanism. We all need to learn to live in society and the basic rules are pretty much the same all over the globe. Don't steal, don't murder and so on.
But it has always intrigued me how religious people won't give their own children the benefit of the doubt. If your religion is so great, the message so clear, why not let them choose freely when they are ready? Why the need to drive it in before their brain develops critical thinking capabilites?
Quote from: Viking on May 08, 2012, 03:14:25 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 08, 2012, 02:51:33 PM
:lol: Well I didn't think you'd actually admit it.
I do carry the courage of my convictions.
Quote from: Barrister on May 08, 2012, 02:51:33 PM
You remind me of a friend of mine from university. He was an evangelical, but he also loved a good rip-roaring debate where he'd refuse to give an inch. Which meant he loved to argue why evolution was wrong.
At the time I was studying geology. So a couple of times I wanted to argue how zircon dating had pretty conclusively shown the world was a hell of a lot older than 5000 years. But do you think I could get him to debate zircon dating? Of course not - he'd always go back to what he knew, which was evolution.
It's not about preferring to argue with fundamentalists over liberals, but rather the fundamentalists are honest. They stand their intellectual ground and argue with conviction for what they believe to be true.
Quote from: Barrister on May 08, 2012, 02:51:33 PM
You don't know what the arguments against more liberal christian theology are, so you just call us "intellectually dishonest" because you'd prefer to argue about biblical literalism. :cool:
I called the act of ignoring the death penalty for shrimp cocktails intellectually dishonest. The act is intellectually dishonest not the person. The person might be doing it honestly. The liberal christian theologian that preaches the virtue of crab sticks is intellectually dishonest.
The podcast "The history of philosophy without any gaps" just had an episode on Philo of Alexandria who was the first liberal (albeit jewish) theologian for anybody interested in the topic. I highly recommend it.
The issue with the liberal theologians is that when confronted with an obvious untruth or immorality in the bible they call it allegorical or symbolic or spiritual asserting that what the bible says is not what it means. Then the make their own assertions, usually using som monstrously convoluted logic, that could have been cut and pasted from the relevant branch of philosophy.
What I don't understand is how the liberal theolgian knows which passages are true and which ones are allegorical. I don't understand how he can assert that he who belives in him shall be granted everlasting life is true but the shellfish bit isn't.
Just because something is difficult to do or to know doesn't mean it shouldn't be attempted.
Quote from: Barrister on May 08, 2012, 03:42:50 PM
Just because something is difficult to do or to know doesn't mean it shouldn't be attempted.
Sticking your head up your own ass is difficult. I suggest you attempt it.
This is a non-argument. I want to hear a reason why it should be done rather than a non argument.
Sheilbh's transformation into a proper adult central-right middle classer is fun to watch :P
Quote from: Iormlund on May 08, 2012, 03:41:33 PM
But it has always intrigued me how religious people won't give their own children the benefit of the doubt. If your religion is so great, the message so clear, why not let them choose freely when they are ready? Why the need to drive it in before their brain develops critical thinking capabilites?
Critical thinking capabilities? So around 35 or so?
Quote from: Viking on May 08, 2012, 03:14:25 PM
What I don't understand is how the liberal theolgian knows which passages are true and which ones are allegorical. I don't understand how he can assert that he who belives in him shall be granted everlasting life is true but the shellfish bit isn't.
I think the answer is obvious. They all are allegorical. Otherwise it makes no sense.
Quote from: Valmy on May 08, 2012, 03:49:40 PM
Quote from: Viking on May 08, 2012, 03:14:25 PM
What I don't understand is how the liberal theolgian knows which passages are true and which ones are allegorical. I don't understand how he can assert that he who belives in him shall be granted everlasting life is true but the shellfish bit isn't.
I think the answer is obvious. They all are allegorical. Otherwise it makes no sense.
How can you be sure the answer isn't "They are not true. Otherwise the world would be completely different." ?
Quote from: Valmy on May 08, 2012, 03:46:56 PM
Quote from: Iormlund on May 08, 2012, 03:41:33 PM
But it has always intrigued me how religious people won't give their own children the benefit of the doubt. If your religion is so great, the message so clear, why not let them choose freely when they are ready? Why the need to drive it in before their brain develops critical thinking capabilites?
Critical thinking capabilities? So around 35 or so?
:lol:
If only.
Quote from: Iormlund on May 08, 2012, 03:41:33 PM
Instilling morals at an early age is a natural mechanism. We all need to learn to live in society and the basic rules are pretty much the same all over the globe. Don't steal, don't murder and so on.
But it has always intrigued me how religious people won't give their own children the benefit of the doubt. If your religion is so great, the message so clear, why not let them choose freely when they are ready? Why the need to drive it in before their brain develops critical thinking capabilites?
To be fair, to paraphrase Arthur Mitchell, if you let children do what they want, they'll eat boogers all day. Children don't have the thinking skills to do what they need to do when they need to do it.
Quote from: Viking on May 08, 2012, 03:40:41 PM
The mere existence of the watch implies the watchmaker because the watch needed making. The making of the watch is the miracle.
I don't see the making of the watch (i.e. the existence of the universe) as "needing a miracle." It just needed a maker, since no one could explain the existence of the watch absent a watchmaker. That was precisely the "watchmaker god" concept.
QuoteThe Big Bang does not suggest that there is no god nor is it an argument against design. When the pope first heard of the big bang he was very happy because it had a beginning and was in that sense consistent with the bible unlike the steady state universe which the big bang theory superceded. The big bang actually opened up for a return of design in the form of guided evolution. God created the giraffe with a long neck by setting the fundamental constants of the universe at the time of the big bang etc.
You are making my argument back at me, claiming that it disproves my argument! :lol:
The watchmaker god theory wasn't based on the argument by design. What the Pope says about the Big Bang Theory, and the discovery of evidence for it, isn't relevant. The evidence to support the Big Bang Theory mostly invalidated the "watchmaker god" concept because it gave a reason for the watch's existence that didn't
require a watchmaker.
QuoteSo, no you are wrong.
:lol: I can't be "wrong," since my statement was
QuoteI'd say that the watchmaker god concept was mostly invalidated by the discovery of evidence for the Big Bang theory
and I'd still say that. Sorry, but you don't get to dictate what I would say! I reserve that right to myself. Maybe you can find someone that accepts your diktats as to what they can say. Good luck with that. :boff:
Quote from: Tamas on May 08, 2012, 03:46:06 PM
Sheilbh's transformation into a proper adult central-right middle classer is fun to watch :P
I've always been a Blairite ultra and I still am. The only change is that I don't believe in Europe any more and I've moved from a cultural Catholicism to an actual Anglicanism.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 08, 2012, 03:57:09 PM
Quote from: Tamas on May 08, 2012, 03:46:06 PM
Sheilbh's transformation into a proper adult central-right middle classer is fun to watch :P
I've always been a Blairite ultra and I still am. The only change is that I don't believe in Europe any more and I've moved from a cultural Catholicism to an actual Anglicanism.
Just a quick check, you belive in the god described in the bible and you believe jesus' death on the cross atones for our sins if we only belive in him?
Quote from: Iormlund on May 08, 2012, 03:41:33 PM
Quote from: derspiess on May 08, 2012, 03:23:57 PM
Is it the indoctrination itself that bothers you, or are you just concerned over the values with which they happen to be indoctrinating their kids?
Instilling morals at an early age is a natural mechanism. We all need to learn to live in society and the basic rules are pretty much the same all over the globe. Don't steal, don't murder and so on.
But it has always intrigued me how religious people won't give their own children the benefit of the doubt. If your religion is so great, the message so clear, why not let them choose freely when they are ready? Why the need to drive it in before their brain develops critical thinking capabilites?
I think I benefited from being brought up "in the church", and I want to give my kids that opportunity. I won't force them to become members. If they shrug their shoulders when they become adults & say it's all BS, so be it. But I think I owe it to them to give them the same opportunity I had.
FWIW, quite a few of the "in your face" religious types actually followed the model you suggest and gravitated toward religion in their adult lives, having had little or no exposure to religion as a child. Zeal of a convert, and all that.
Quote from: Viking on May 08, 2012, 04:01:15 PM
Just a quick check, you belive in the god described in the bible and you believe jesus' death on the cross atones for our sins if we only belive in him?
I don't know much of the Bible. I've only ever really read it from a literary perspective. When I was studying English I did a unit on the Bible and literature, so I know my Milton and Renaissance interpretations of the Book of Judith far more.
Though I got an edition of the King James which I'm reading through. I'll let you know properly when I'm finished.
I believe in God - I think Biblical understanding of God shifts from a Jewish war and rain God, to the God of the Jewish people, to a universal God worshipped by Jews, to a God for gentile and Jew, slave and free.
I believe in Christ's physical death and resurrection, the forgiveness of sins and, because of Christ, the resurrection of man after death.
Quote from: Viking on May 08, 2012, 03:45:26 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 08, 2012, 03:42:50 PM
Just because something is difficult to do or to know doesn't mean it shouldn't be attempted.
Sticking your head up your own ass is difficult. I suggest you attempt it.
This is a non-argument. I want to hear a reason why it should be done rather than a non argument.
It was a refutation of your point. You said it was pretty hard to figure out what parts of the Bible are allegorical, and which are not.
I agreed with you. It is hard. But just because something is hard doesn't mean it's not worth attempting.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 08, 2012, 04:09:22 PM
Quote from: Viking on May 08, 2012, 04:01:15 PM
Just a quick check, you belive in the god described in the bible and you believe jesus' death on the cross atones for our sins if we only belive in him?
I don't know much of the Bible. I've only ever really read it from a literary perspective. When I was studying English I did a unit on the Bible and literature, so I know my Milton and Renaissance interpretations of the Book of Judith far more.
Though I got an edition of the King James which I'm reading through. I'll let you know properly when I'm finished.
I believe in God - I think Biblical understanding of God shifts from a Jewish war and rain God, to the God of the Jewish people, to a universal God worshipped by Jews, to a God for gentile and Jew, slave and free.
I believe in Christ's physical death and resurrection, the forgiveness of sins and, because of Christ, the resurrection of man after death.
I used the phrase "as described in the bible" to segregate god from all the other gods, but srsly, how can you be a christian if you haven't read the bible as revalation?
Do you mind sharing with us your conversion story?
Quote from: Viking on May 08, 2012, 03:45:26 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 08, 2012, 03:42:50 PM
Just because something is difficult to do or to know doesn't mean it shouldn't be attempted.
Sticking your head up your own ass is difficult. I suggest you attempt it.
Why? You seem to be doing such a good job of it.
Quote from: Viking on May 08, 2012, 04:13:31 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 08, 2012, 04:09:22 PM
Quote from: Viking on May 08, 2012, 04:01:15 PM
Just a quick check, you belive in the god described in the bible and you believe jesus' death on the cross atones for our sins if we only belive in him?
I don't know much of the Bible. I've only ever really read it from a literary perspective. When I was studying English I did a unit on the Bible and literature, so I know my Milton and Renaissance interpretations of the Book of Judith far more.
Though I got an edition of the King James which I'm reading through. I'll let you know properly when I'm finished.
I believe in God - I think Biblical understanding of God shifts from a Jewish war and rain God, to the God of the Jewish people, to a universal God worshipped by Jews, to a God for gentile and Jew, slave and free.
I believe in Christ's physical death and resurrection, the forgiveness of sins and, because of Christ, the resurrection of man after death.
I used the phrase "as described in the bible" to segregate god from all the other gods, but srsly, how can you be a christian if you haven't read the bible as revalation?
Do you mind sharing with us your conversion story?
Sheilbh is coming from the catholic heritage, which doesn't put nearly as much weight on reading the bible as us Protestants do. :mellow: Instead it's all about the accumulated wisdom of the Church and its teachings.
Quote from: Barrister on May 08, 2012, 04:11:35 PM
Quote from: Viking on May 08, 2012, 03:45:26 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 08, 2012, 03:42:50 PM
Just because something is difficult to do or to know doesn't mean it shouldn't be attempted.
Sticking your head up your own ass is difficult. I suggest you attempt it.
This is a non-argument. I want to hear a reason why it should be done rather than a non argument.
It was a refutation of your point. You said it was pretty hard to figure out what parts of the Bible are allegorical, and which are not.
I agreed with you. It is hard. But just because something is hard doesn't mean it's not worth attempting.
I didn't say it was hard, I said that there was no criterion for deciding what is allegorical and what isn't.
Quote from: derspiess on May 08, 2012, 04:06:15 PM
FWIW, quite a few of the "in your face" religious types actually followed the model you suggest and gravitated toward religion in their adult lives, having had little or no exposure to religion as a child. Zeal of a convert, and all that.
Yeah I know. The process goes the other way, too. Especially in a society like modern Spain. Most of us 30-somethings were baptised and took communion. Many went to Catholic schools or took the semi-mandatory religion classes in public ones.
And yet, my generation is largely irreligious. You can know someone for years and religion will never come up in a conversation, except for invariable displays of anti-clericalism. If you do ask, he or she will perhaps describe him or herself as Catholic, despite being a Deist at most.
Quote from: Viking on May 08, 2012, 04:17:58 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 08, 2012, 04:11:35 PM
Quote from: Viking on May 08, 2012, 03:45:26 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 08, 2012, 03:42:50 PM
Just because something is difficult to do or to know doesn't mean it shouldn't be attempted.
Sticking your head up your own ass is difficult. I suggest you attempt it.
This is a non-argument. I want to hear a reason why it should be done rather than a non argument.
It was a refutation of your point. You said it was pretty hard to figure out what parts of the Bible are allegorical, and which are not.
I agreed with you. It is hard. But just because something is hard doesn't mean it's not worth attempting.
I didn't say it was hard, I said that there was no criterion for deciding what is allegorical and what isn't.
:huh:
Of course their are all kinds of criteria. Entire movements of theologians have attempted to figure it out based on a variety of criteria. There is no agreement of course, and nothing can be categorically proven, but that doesn't mean they're just throwing darts at a board.
Quote from: Iormlund on May 08, 2012, 04:24:55 PM
Quote from: derspiess on May 08, 2012, 04:06:15 PM
FWIW, quite a few of the "in your face" religious types actually followed the model you suggest and gravitated toward religion in their adult lives, having had little or no exposure to religion as a child. Zeal of a convert, and all that.
Yeah I know. The process goes the other way, too. Especially in a society like modern Spain. Most of us 30-somethings were baptised and took communion. Many went to Catholic schools or took the semi-mandatory religion classes in public ones.
And yet, my generation is largely irreligious. You can know someone for years and religion will never come up in a conversation, except for invariable displays of anti-clericalism. If you do ask, he or she will perhaps describe him or herself as Catholic, despite being a Deist at most.
And in our country there is no state church and religion thrives.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 08, 2012, 08:26:00 AM
My favorite book when I was little was my Children's Illustrated Bible. :wub:
Really? Mine was the Greek mythology. My grandma started to read it to me when I was like 6. I could name the Muses before I could name the Apostles. :D
I read the Iliad and the Kalevala before I read the Bible. Jewish myths are even less interesting than the Finnish ones. Go figure.
Quote from: Barrister on May 08, 2012, 04:26:11 PM
Quote from: Viking on May 08, 2012, 04:17:58 PM
I didn't say it was hard, I said that there was no criterion for deciding what is allegorical and what isn't.
:huh:
Of course their are all kinds of criteria. Entire movements of theologians have attempted to figure it out based on a variety of criteria. There is no agreement of course, and nothing can be categorically proven, but that doesn't mean they're just throwing darts at a board.
I should have used "objective criteria" rather than just criteria. There is no test of falsifiability that can be applied to any attempt to systematize the identification of allegorical passages in the bible. That doesn't mean any attempts are completely random but rather that they are mere opinions. There is no prospect of resolution of which opinion is true.
My point is that there is no way of knowing which passages are meant to be allegorical and which are meant to be factual. Ultimately this means that the distinction no longer matters. Ultimately what happens is that the stories that are proven wrong are declared to be allegorical and the as yet not disproven stores are maintained as fact. This is in fact a case of moving the goalposts; which is what I accused liberal theology of doing earlier in this thread.
The problem with the "Bible offers many useful lessons" argument is really that it does not even attempt to show how that compares to tons of other books and stories that offer more useful lessons without the side dish of genocide and rape (or, conversely, a lot of available stories of genocide and rape are much cooler and more entertaining too).
Between the likes of Euripides, Homer, Shakespeare or Voltaire (or HBO, for that matter), why would anyone want to read the Bible instead?
Quote from: Viking on May 08, 2012, 04:39:18 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 08, 2012, 04:26:11 PM
Quote from: Viking on May 08, 2012, 04:17:58 PM
I didn't say it was hard, I said that there was no criterion for deciding what is allegorical and what isn't.
:huh:
Of course their are all kinds of criteria. Entire movements of theologians have attempted to figure it out based on a variety of criteria. There is no agreement of course, and nothing can be categorically proven, but that doesn't mean they're just throwing darts at a board.
I should have used "objective criteria" rather than just criteria. There is no test of falsifiability that can be applied to any attempt to systematize the identification of allegorical passages in the bible. That doesn't mean any attempts are completely random but rather that they are mere opinions. There is no prospect of resolution of which opinion is true.
My point is that there is no way of knowing which passages are meant to be allegorical and which are meant to be factual. Ultimately this means that the distinction no longer matters. Ultimately what happens is that the stories that are proven wrong are declared to be allegorical and the as yet not disproven stores are maintained as fact. This is in fact a case of moving the goalposts; which is what I accused liberal theology of doing earlier in this thread.
There are very few "objective criteria" in attempting to analyze any ancient text, be it the Bible, the Illiad or Mayan stelae. That certainly does not mean that attempts to analyze such works is futile.
Quote from: Martinus on May 08, 2012, 04:43:51 PM
The problem with the "Bible offers many useful lessons" argument is really that it does not even attempt to show how that compares to tons of other books and stories that offer more useful lessons without the side dish of genocide and rape (or, conversely, a lot of available stories of genocide and rape are much cooler and more entertaining too).
Between the likes of Euripides, Homer, Shakespeare or Voltaire (or HBO, for that matter), why would anyone want to read the Bible instead?
Who cares? Why pick Homer over Milton? It doesn't matter.
Quote from: Viking on May 08, 2012, 04:13:31 PM
I used the phrase "as described in the bible" to segregate god from all the other gods, but srsly, how can you be a christian if you haven't read the bible as revalation?
And my point is there are multiple descriptions of God made in the Bible, which were written at different points by different authors and classes of authors. So I don't yet have an opinion on the 'God as described in the Bible' because, frankly, the God of Exodus is different from the God of Isaiah and Jeremiah and very different from the God of John's Gospel. Similarly even I can see the Bible's a text that revises itself as it goes. So I struggle with the idea of 'God as described in the Bible'. Based on my reading so far I'd immediately want to know, which God?
It's not that odd for Christians not to have read the Bible. My parents have been going to Church for over 100 years between them and they don't even own a Bible. I imagine most self-described Christians haven't read the Bible. I read lots of theology, so I read Augustine and Aquinas and, especially, John Henry Newman. The idea of reading the Bible before you know how to understand it always struck me as a bit odd.
QuoteDo you mind sharing with us your conversion story?
Well I'd always gone to Church occasionally so I never felt like I left. I've never been a huge believer but I've also never rejected the Church. But I could never find a regular Catholic Church I liked that I would find coherent. My movement to the CofE, though, was down to finding a Church I liked, reading some poetry (John Donne), sermons and some of Rowan Williams's theology.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 08, 2012, 04:53:10 PMWho cares? Why pick Homer over Milton? It doesn't matter.
Yeah. That's absurd. If those are your choices you're doing well. We live in a world where people pick Twilight over any of them - that's more of a worry :P
Quote from: Barrister on May 08, 2012, 04:50:50 PM
There are very few "objective criteria" in attempting to analyze any ancient text, be it the Bible, the Illiad or Mayan stelae. That certainly does not mean that attempts to analyze such works is futile.
Except no Homer scholar tries to prove Zeus was watching it all from Mt Ida. He's more interested in things like whether Bronze Age champions disembarked from chariots to fight, which might be proved by actual evidence.
Quote from: Martinus on May 08, 2012, 04:36:11 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 08, 2012, 08:26:00 AM
My favorite book when I was little was my Children's Illustrated Bible. :wub:
Really? Mine was the Greek mythology. My grandma started to read it to me when I was like 6. I could name the Muses before I could name the Apostles. :D
Oh, those were a total blast. I had several illustrated books on Greek mythology. Unfortunately, some of the tales were a shitload more scarier than the Bible.
QuoteI read the Iliad and the Kalevala before I read the Bible. Jewish myths are even less interesting than the Finnish ones. Go figure.
Considering the Iliad appeared before the Bible, you should have.
It's all within the progression of the study of the evolution of literature and literary theory of western civilization.
Ancients > Bible > European Renaissance > Enlightenment and post-Enlightenment > modern literature
Quote from: Viking on May 08, 2012, 03:34:32 PMYou can't assert that so much did god love mankind that he sent his only begotten son to die so that those who belive in him shall be granted eternal life while at the same time claiming that his ways are mysterious. It is in effect asserting that your conclusions are true and refusing to answer any questions apart from repeating your own assertions.
Hold on. I said that Christians are more able to comprehend God through Christ than through 'God' (the Father, or Holy Spirit). We can understand Christ's role because he explains it. We can approach comprehension of his nature - but barely, while comprehension of God's is wholly beyond us.
QuoteAgain, when you can't explain something you claim incomprehensability, then you assert other things about god. You are basically saying that the description of god uses words that don't mean what they usually mean. Your religion falls apart at that point you are basically saying that there is no connection between the meaning of the words used and the content of the message. You cannot assert that some parts are incomprehensible and other parts are clear and obvious without some way of differentiating between the two.
Well words don't mean anything. They point towards meanings that we all understand in different ways. The limitations of language exist when you're not talking about theology.
Again I think you're missing the point I assert God and the nature of God are incomprehensible. They are beyond human understanding. You have the Bible which is mediated by man so it's imperfect but it's not incomprehensible and theology is an attempt to understand that and square it with our human experiences.
Quote from: Iormlund on May 08, 2012, 05:02:46 PM
Except no Homer scholar tries to prove Zeus was watching it all from Mt Ida. He's more interested in things like whether Bronze Age champions disembarked from chariots to fight, which might be proved by actual evidence.
Not really sure what has to do with the value of the material.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 08, 2012, 04:54:40 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 08, 2012, 04:53:10 PMWho cares? Why pick Homer over Milton? It doesn't matter.
Yeah. That's absurd. If those are your choices you're doing well. We live in a world where people pick Twilight over any of them - that's more of a worry :P
:D
Quote from: Iormlund on May 08, 2012, 05:02:46 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 08, 2012, 04:50:50 PM
There are very few "objective criteria" in attempting to analyze any ancient text, be it the Bible, the Illiad or Mayan stelae. That certainly does not mean that attempts to analyze such works is futile.
Except no Homer scholar tries to prove Zeus was watching it all from Mt Ida. He's more interested in things like whether Bronze Age champions disembarked from chariots to fight, which might be proved by actual evidence.
I don't think Homer was ever regarded as a "religious" text. It's more like a story where gods happen to be some of the characters.
Quote from: Viking on May 08, 2012, 02:58:36 PM
Quote from: derspiess on May 08, 2012, 02:42:09 PM
Leaving aside the Lincoln/Jefferson troll bait, if I were an atheist I'd probably have nothing to do with religious discussions, as they wouldn't interest me in the slightest. I'm curious to know where certain atheists' hostility towards religion comes from. Did religion cause harm to you in some significant manner, to where you think you have to fight back against it?
I care about religion for the same reason I care about politics; because it affects me too. I prefer truth to fantasy and I prefer to live in a society where others prefer truth to fantasy. Your religion does affect me when it flies planes into buildings, sabotages stemm cell research, takes my tax kroner and convinces people that morality can be found in a book.
Religion is an untruth that affects me. If it didn't affect me then I wouldn't care. I am militant on the issue for the simple reason that religious demand that I do not challenge their dogma when they advocate for it. The religion spat here started when AmScip called soviet communism a form of secular humanism. That's not me attacking religion, that the religious attacking dogma free government.
The idea that Soviet Communism is dogma free is like the idea that China's one-child policy is enlightened. False in its terms.
The one child policy is very enlightened.
I thought about this thread a today I thought it strange that Viking hates religion in a way that he considers to be irrational.
QuoteI hate religion in the same way Jefferson and Lincoln did.
http://languish.org/forums/index.php/topic,7520.210.html
But a little earlier...
QuoteTo be honest before 1859 you could not be an honest well informed rational atheist because of the design argument.
http://languish.org/forums/index.php/topic,7520.180.html
So presumably Viking means that he hates religion in a way that is not informed, rational, or honest.
I think God will have to explain the whole Holocaust gig, before I agree to be on speaking terms with him/it.
He hates Jews because they won't accept killed Jeebus. Duh.
Quote from: mongers on May 08, 2012, 06:49:36 PM
I think God will have to explain the whole Holocaust gig, before I agree to be on speaking terms with him/it.
Why? He didn't do it. The Europeans did. Though admittedly that does sound like something he would do.
Quote from: mongers on May 08, 2012, 06:49:36 PM
I think God will have to explain the whole Holocaust gig, before I agree to be on speaking terms with him/it.
People have free will.
Quote from: Caliga on May 08, 2012, 07:02:41 PM
He hates Jews because they won't accept killed Jeebus. Duh.
No, he doesn't.
Quote from: Scipio on May 08, 2012, 08:22:21 PM
Quote from: Caliga on May 08, 2012, 07:02:41 PM
He hates Jews because they won't accept killed Jeebus. Duh.
No, he doesn't.
I thought Southern Protestant orthodoxy these days was is that Israel, and the Jewish people there, should be protected at any cost (especially if it involves nuking Muslims).
You're confusing Protestant Orthodoxy with the GOP. :P
Quote from: Valmy on May 08, 2012, 08:20:30 PM
Quote from: mongers on May 08, 2012, 06:49:36 PM
I think God will have to explain the whole Holocaust gig, before I agree to be on speaking terms with him/it.
People have free will.
Even parents intervene when their young children are making egregious errors.
Quote from: garbon on May 08, 2012, 08:45:04 PM
Quote from: Valmy on May 08, 2012, 08:20:30 PM
Quote from: mongers on May 08, 2012, 06:49:36 PM
I think God will have to explain the whole Holocaust gig, before I agree to be on speaking terms with him/it.
People have free will.
Even parents intervene when their young children are making egregious errors.
Who is to say God didn't?
Within a few years Hitler was dead, Berlin lay in ruins, and the Jews had their own country... :ph34r:
Quote from: Valmy on May 08, 2012, 08:20:30 PM
Quote from: mongers on May 08, 2012, 06:49:36 PM
I think God will have to explain the whole Holocaust gig, before I agree to be on speaking terms with him/it.
People have free will.
conflicts with the assertion that everything is part of god's plan. Conflicts with predestination too (in as far as both aren't the same)
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on May 09, 2012, 03:01:09 AM
Quote from: Valmy on May 08, 2012, 08:20:30 PM
Quote from: mongers on May 08, 2012, 06:49:36 PM
I think God will have to explain the whole Holocaust gig, before I agree to be on speaking terms with him/it.
People have free will.
conflicts with the assertion that everything is part of god's plan. Conflicts with predestination too (in as far as both aren't the same)
yes. Also the reason why these debates, while fun, are pointless.
The entire reason of existence for religiousness is to throw reason out of the window and install a comfy cushion against the harsh reality of being a highly complex chemical molecule or whatever, with no reason for existence. Not to mention full responsibility for your decisions and actions. That's a scary thought for a lot of folks.
But, this thread does remind me of Languish meets :D
Especially the debate in some tiny restaurant in the Italian Alps, while getting drunk on wine. :cool:
Quote from: Tamas on May 09, 2012, 04:11:08 AM
The entire reason of existence for religiousness is to throw reason out of the window and install a comfy cushion against the harsh reality of being a highly complex chemical molecule or whatever, with no reason for existence. Not to mention full responsibility for your decisions and actions. That's a scary thought for a lot of folks.
Hrm well I do not use it for that. Nor do I find anything particular harsh about that reality, indeed if there was a reason for existance I probably would be religious since I would be out searching for what that meaning is. Since there is none I am free to do whatever I find enjoyable. And why is having no meaning so "harsh"? Seems pretty liberating to me.
And in many religions it seems to me they make a far bigger deal about your decisions and actions, and put far more pressure on you, than ordinary life does.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on May 09, 2012, 03:01:09 AM
conflicts with the assertion that everything is part of god's plan. Conflicts with predestination too (in as far as both aren't the same)
True but those assertions conflict with the Bible itself, which is why I never really got them. If God already knew what the Israelites/Adam and Eve/whomever were going to do he seemed surprisingly upset and surprised. So his grand plan was to form convenents with people who were always going to piss him off?
Things like the Tsunami, which had no human agency involved, would strike me as more difficult to explain than the fact that people do bad stuff. If I was one of those people who thinks everything is running according to plan anyway.
Quote from: Tamas on May 09, 2012, 04:11:08 AM
But, this thread does remind me of Languish meets :D
Especially the debate in some tiny restaurant in the Italian Alps, while getting drunk on wine. :cool:
That night was awesome. :cool:
Quote from: Barrister on May 09, 2012, 08:42:36 AM
That night was awesome. :cool:
Hope CdM is not there. He would explode into a rage and toss all of our wine out on the street.
Quote from: Valmy on May 09, 2012, 08:43:52 AM
Quote from: Barrister on May 09, 2012, 08:42:36 AM
That night was awesome. :cool:
Hope CdM is not there. He would explode into a rage and toss all of our wine out on the street.
[showing off]
Nope it was me, Tamas, RH and Ank in the Italian Alps getting drunk on wine and discussing God and the meaning of life in the kind of really earnest discussion you can only have when you're half in the bag on really good wine.
[/showing off]
I know you were saying you and Tamas actually did that :(
PDH and I will talk about something cool at the football game this fall :blurgh:
Like, you know, great Wyoming Running Backs of the 80s.
Quote from: Valmy on May 09, 2012, 08:54:01 AM
I know you were saying you and Tamas actually did that :(
PDH and I will talk about something cool at the football game this fall :blurgh:
Like, you know, great Wyoming Running Backs of the 80s.
One of these days I am likely to show up in Texas... :whistle:
Quote from: Barrister on May 09, 2012, 08:56:37 AM
One of these days I am likely to show up in Texas... :whistle:
:w00t:
There was a kid in my review session for my Computer Engineering Final last night who was wearing Jets gear. So you might fit right in.
Quote from: Valmy on May 09, 2012, 08:57:39 AM
Quote from: Barrister on May 09, 2012, 08:56:37 AM
One of these days I am likely to show up in Texas... :whistle:
:w00t:
There was a kid in my review session for my Computer Engineering Final last night who was wearing Jets gear. So you might fit right in.
The good Jets (Winnipeg) or the bad Jets (NY)?
Quote from: Barrister on May 09, 2012, 09:08:16 AM
The good Jets (Winnipeg) or the bad Jets (NY)?
The good Jets.
Quote from: Valmy on May 09, 2012, 09:09:08 AM
Quote from: Barrister on May 09, 2012, 09:08:16 AM
The good Jets (Winnipeg) or the bad Jets (NY)?
The good Jets.
:w00t:
We truly are legion. :cool:
But yeah - Texas is one of those places I'd like to visit, and where travel costs are much mroe reasonable. So assuming Languish keeps running I should, eventually, make it down there and meet up with you and your family.
<_<
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 09, 2012, 09:19:30 AM
<_<
:huh:
I'd like to visit Quebec too.
But Texas is actually easier to get to from Alberta.
Quote from: Barrister on May 08, 2012, 09:43:29 PM
Quote from: garbon on May 08, 2012, 08:45:04 PM
Quote from: Valmy on May 08, 2012, 08:20:30 PM
Quote from: mongers on May 08, 2012, 06:49:36 PM
I think God will have to explain the whole Holocaust gig, before I agree to be on speaking terms with him/it.
People have free will.
Even parents intervene when their young children are making egregious errors.
Who is to say God didn't?
Within a few years Hitler was dead, Berlin lay in ruins, and the Jews had their own country... :ph34r:
so your saying there is a God, he just has god aweful timing?
Quote from: Razgovory on May 08, 2012, 06:11:52 PM
Quote from: Iormlund on May 08, 2012, 05:02:46 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 08, 2012, 04:50:50 PM
There are very few "objective criteria" in attempting to analyze any ancient text, be it the Bible, the Illiad or Mayan stelae. That certainly does not mean that attempts to analyze such works is futile.
Except no Homer scholar tries to prove Zeus was watching it all from Mt Ida. He's more interested in things like whether Bronze Age champions disembarked from chariots to fight, which might be proved by actual evidence.
I don't think Homer was ever regarded as a "religious" text. It's more like a story where gods happen to be some of the characters.
It was just as much of a religious text as the Bible in the sense that the Greeks used the text as instructional lessons regarding how to live their lives.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 09, 2012, 09:22:24 AM
Quote from: Barrister on May 08, 2012, 09:43:29 PM
Quote from: garbon on May 08, 2012, 08:45:04 PM
Quote from: Valmy on May 08, 2012, 08:20:30 PM
Quote from: mongers on May 08, 2012, 06:49:36 PM
I think God will have to explain the whole Holocaust gig, before I agree to be on speaking terms with him/it.
People have free will.
Even parents intervene when their young children are making egregious errors.
Who is to say God didn't?
Within a few years Hitler was dead, Berlin lay in ruins, and the Jews had their own country... :ph34r:
so your saying there is a God, he just has god aweful timing?
Just that he moves in mysterious ways...
Quote from: Barrister on May 08, 2012, 09:43:29 PM
Quote from: garbon on May 08, 2012, 08:45:04 PM
Quote from: Valmy on May 08, 2012, 08:20:30 PM
Quote from: mongers on May 08, 2012, 06:49:36 PM
I think God will have to explain the whole Holocaust gig, before I agree to be on speaking terms with him/it.
People have free will.
Even parents intervene when their young children are making egregious errors.
Who is to say God didn't?
Within a few years Hitler was dead, Berlin lay in ruins, and the Jews had their own country... :ph34r:
Because the egregious error could have been corrected before millions had to die.
Quote from: garbon on May 09, 2012, 09:27:18 AM
Because the egregious error could have been corrected before millions had to die.
Pretty sure no errors were involved. The Germans seemed pretty deliberate.
Quote from: Barrister on May 09, 2012, 09:24:41 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 09, 2012, 09:22:24 AM
Quote from: Barrister on May 08, 2012, 09:43:29 PM
Quote from: garbon on May 08, 2012, 08:45:04 PM
Quote from: Valmy on May 08, 2012, 08:20:30 PM
Quote from: mongers on May 08, 2012, 06:49:36 PM
I think God will have to explain the whole Holocaust gig, before I agree to be on speaking terms with him/it.
People have free will.
Even parents intervene when their young children are making egregious errors.
Who is to say God didn't?
Within a few years Hitler was dead, Berlin lay in ruins, and the Jews had their own country... :ph34r:
so your saying there is a God, he just has god aweful timing?
Just that he moves in mysterious ways...
If mysterious means idiotic then yes, I agree.
Quote from: Valmy on May 09, 2012, 09:38:09 AM
Quote from: garbon on May 09, 2012, 09:27:18 AM
Because the egregious error could have been corrected before millions had to die.
Pretty sure no errors were involved. The Germans seemed pretty deliberate.
The notion that God controlled everything means that God is responsible for that as well. The notion of free will is rather odd in the Christian doctrine since God can and does, Christians believe, intervene or as BB would have it moves in ways we cannot comprehend. Which is really code for WTF was God doing?
Quote from: Valmy on May 09, 2012, 09:38:09 AM
Quote from: garbon on May 09, 2012, 09:27:18 AM
Because the egregious error could have been corrected before millions had to die.
Pretty sure no errors were involved. The Germans seemed pretty deliberate.
They erred in thinking it was a good idea.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 09, 2012, 09:45:22 AM
Quote from: Valmy on May 09, 2012, 09:38:09 AM
Quote from: garbon on May 09, 2012, 09:27:18 AM
Because the egregious error could have been corrected before millions had to die.
Pretty sure no errors were involved. The Germans seemed pretty deliberate.
The notion that God controlled everything means that God is responsible for that as well. The notion of free will is rather odd in the Christian doctrine since God can and does, Christians believe, intervene or as BB would have it moves in ways we cannot comprehend. Which is really code for WTF was God doing?
I like to think He was too busy watching over America. :wub:
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 09, 2012, 09:45:22 AM
The notion that God controlled everything means that God is responsible for that as well. The notion of free will is rather odd in the Christian doctrine since God can and does, Christians believe, intervene or as BB would have it moves in ways we cannot comprehend. Which is really code for WTF was God doing?
This is pretty hardcore predestination stuff. And while certainly present in Calvinists I am not sure it is a universal Christian doctrine. The Bible makes it pretty clear humans do horrible things and that God feels no particular feeling that he is responsible for what they did. Heck even when he wants humans to do horrible things they still fuck it up. So it seems odd to point out that 'OMG humans do horrible things, that proves there is no God' given the backstory here.
No I do not see any specific evidence that would suggest Christianity, or Judaism, claims God is responsible for human action. I mean besides creating humans in the first place.
Quote from: Valmy on May 09, 2012, 10:47:06 AM
No I do not see any specific evidence that would suggest Christianity, or Judaism, claims God is responsible for human action. I mean besides creating humans in the first place.
Well isn't there something to be said for those who know something is happening and yet took no steps to prevent it / curtail it? I thought that was part of the reason that so much guilt/shame got heaped on Germany. Seems like it'd be very true then for an all-powerful, all-knowing deity.
Quote from: Valmy on May 09, 2012, 10:47:06 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 09, 2012, 09:45:22 AM
The notion that God controlled everything means that God is responsible for that as well. The notion of free will is rather odd in the Christian doctrine since God can and does, Christians believe, intervene or as BB would have it moves in ways we cannot comprehend. Which is really code for WTF was God doing?
This is pretty hardcore predestination stuff. And while certainly present in Calvinists I am not sure it is a universal Christian doctrine. The Bible makes it pretty clear humans do horrible things and that God feels no particular feeling that he is responsible for what they did. Heck even when he wants humans to do horrible things they still fuck it up. So it seems odd to point out that 'OMG humans do horrible things, that proves there is no God' given the backstory here.
No I do not see any specific evidence that would suggest Christianity, or Judaism, claims God is responsible for human action. I mean besides creating humans in the first place.
You really cant have it both ways. Either God intervenes or he doesnt. If he intervenes he has done a piss poor job of it.
One does not need to ascribe to the calvanist preordination to believe that God intervenes. Take BB for example...
Predestination joke:
A 90 year old Presbyterian woman walks down the stairs to her basement to grab some homemade preserves. She trips and falls, and suffers an agonizing broken hip. As she's being carried to the ambulance she says, "I sure am glad I got that over with."
:punk: