As I haven't posted for a fortnight, here's a comment I wrote in response to Jonathan's post on 'Musings' top right, 'Science and its limits: Chapter Seven', March 8th. It expresses some of my recent thoughts about faith.
'...I don't think God will be found in the detached testable way you want. We're looking at reality in very different ways, like through a different lens or set of specs. I'm thinking about how people move from atheism to belief in God, and it strikes me that the idea of paradigm shift is helpful here: a different way of looking at reality. And while discussion has a part to play in tackling intellectual problems, you'd likely find from testimony that things like time and experience - or a particular very striking experience - have a part to play. CS Lewis in 'Surprised by joy' is a case in point (he like A McGrath was an atheist first).
If you see reality through this radically different paradigm, then it - the same reality we all see - can positively throb with a sense of the presence of God, at least some of the time; eg ask an African Christian, I'm sure from the perspective of a culture steeped in a sense of the spiritual character of the world and nature, he/she would give a very different account of what reality looks like from a western secularist.
I'm just trying to challenge the secular science view a bit here.
For me, evidence of God is primarily relational - though this has taken time to develop. Not through detached observation of data. A good starting point is a simple step like the prayer, 'God, if you are real, please reveal yourself to me', with even a 'mustard seed' of at least openness. It could be mixed with a load of scepticism and questions to be answered - it'd just be a start. Who knows what might happen given time. Another principle of 'evidence' from the Christian perspective is, act on the little that is revealed, even just a small step like a question to read up on, and more truth and presence (of God) are revealed.
REVELATION is a key concept; that we don't have to work it all out for ourselves, but that God reveals Himself. In various ways, nature, the bible, and primarily through a Person, Jesus. It is through dynamic interacting personal relationship with Christ as revealed in scripture that I experience God's reality in a growing way from day to day. It's a whole being interaction, head, heart, will, not just head. Yes, some intellectual obstacles may need to be removed first, and go on being removed. But then it's like a process of surrender - not of your brain, but of your whole being, to the reality of God as personal dynamic presence that breaks and crashes upon you like waves.
I'm just trying here to give a clearer picture of what having faith in God looks and feels like for a Christian - spurred by the 'evidence' question J.
I've been meditating recently over several days on John 9 in the bible, about a man born blind who was healed by Jesus - had an experience no-one could take from him, even in the teeth of strong opposition and questioning from the religious elite of the day. It seems relevant. Again, this is a way I think God is revealed, through narrative and drama, not just philosophical or scientific speculation.
Think about what's going on when you fall in love, or read an epic like Lord of the Rings - examples of something like the kind of suspension of intellectual scepticism, and openness and vulnerability of heart and imagination that are involved in faith in God.
No, I haven't been on acid. I'm just a bit more lucid in the morning.'
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
.JPG)
85 comments:
and here was my reply
Bruce, I have prayed that prayer and more. The problem is it does not work, and the blame always gets put on the non believer. If you go about expecting prayer to be answered yes, no or not yet, you are always going to convince yourself that it is being answered. This I think is self deceptional.
I have just asked my key booard that Philip will appear through the door with a cup of tea - if it is my key boards will.
Well, my prayer has been answered, Philip is not here, it can not be the keyboards will. I now have a relationship with my key board that is identical to the one between you and your god - what makes you think yours is any more real?
You still have not said why your pardigm should be valid - only what you believe.
It seems you are now admitting that faith is not rational. Many would also call falling in love delusional too.
Revelation - that is highly subjective.
Can you justify the validity of your paradigm?
Hi Billy,
and here was my reply
Bruce, I have prayed that prayer and more. The problem is it does not work, and the blame always gets put on the non believer.
This idea of “the power of prayer” put a news story into my head I read recently - from a comment on the RD.net
http://tinyurl.com/3depq6
So what happens when no answer is given from prayer and the person has been told, from a child, that it is their fault for the non-reply?
I am not saying this is typical, it isn't - but as a non-believer who has never "found the power of prayer", it makes me think of the dangers of pushing the idea.
Lee
PS
Bruce,
I assume you wish us to reply to your comments here?
Lee
Hi Lee, and here was part of my response :-)
"Still waiting for Philip and that cup of tea, but at least, my prayer is set up in such a way that I can claim it was answered whatever the outcome."
Hi folks, yes Lee feel free to comment here.
A stray thought but I just saw this request on a web forum :
" Pro-gay theology...
I need some web sites I can check out and copy and paste in an argument against pro-gay theology, anyone know of some good sites or web documents that completly debunk this hanous ideology???"
Amazing huh ? cut and paste arguments in theology ? No thought or spelling required ! Billy this must warm your affections for organised religion :)
Rob
Hi Rob,
How about godhatesfags.com
What is wrong with homosexuality?
Billy this must warm your affections for organised religion :)
Not as much as the muppetry of pope ratzinger concerning biomedical research. I wouldn't mind so much if there was actually a chance that prayer could cure diseases such as cystic fibrosis, diabetes and parkinsons.
You know, I have an obvious vested interest in being in favour of pro-gay theology, but much of it *is* unconvincing if you take Scripture seriously.
You know, I have an obvious vested interest in being in favour of pro-gay theology, but much of it *is* unconvincing if you take Scripture seriously.
Yes, the bible is a vile homophobic book written by genocidal bronze age bigots.
There is an obvious danger in accepting its authority on moral matters.
There is nothing inherently wrong with homosexuality, and this book has caused endless suffering for many on the matter
I don't often feel the need to step in after a comment, but I do here to say that this may be how you view the bible Billy, but it is decidedly your subjective opinion. It would I think sound distinctly jaundiced to a lot of non-believers; to anyone with even a little fair judgement on the matter, let alone the understanding that - and yes you're free to regard this as MY opinion too - comes through faith... it sounds simply and grossly wrong.
As CB has pointed out before, and I think we shd take him seriously on this as more of an 'insider' than you on the issue, the very word 'homophobic' that's so easily bandied around, is decidedly loaded, framed by a particular contemporary way of looking at the issue. Disagreeing with homosexual behaviour does not mean you have a neurotic fear of people with whatever degree of homosexual orientation - I think that makes the point.
I have in mind to write a post sometime soon about how we view scripture, because it's such a locus of misunderstanding and misrepresentation. Let me just say here that a starting point is to view the bible not simplistically and naively as a flat pack how-to manual or instruction book, but as a library of books charting man's grappling with the nature of God and his ways, and the progressive revelation of God to people.
Had to comment. My experience of the power and beauty of Scripture and the God revealed there, ultimately in Christ, is too great to allow your view here Billy to go unchallenged.
Even if you do think that's just my opinion.
I don't often feel the need to step in after a comment, but I do here to say that this may be how you view the bible Billy, but it is decidedly your subjective opinion.
Bruce, I cant take that comment seriously in light of the very hard to misinterpret "If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13)
It would I think sound distinctly jaundiced to a lot of non-believers; to anyone with even a little fair judgement on the matter
No Bruce, I think it is impossible to put a good spin on Lev 20:13. I have challenged you many times on this with no response other than a rather arrogant you dont understand from you - a total lack of engagement. If you really cant see this as a bad verse because of your faith, then I do have to conclude that religion can make good people hold bad beliefs purlt on religious authority without accountability.
Non believers that I show that verse to are genuinely horrified, so less of the insults please.
As CB has pointed out before, and I think we shd take him seriously on this as more of an 'insider' than you on the issue, the very word 'homophobic' that's so easily bandied around, is decidedly loaded, framed by a particular contemporary way of looking at the issue.
Bruce, I am almost speechless here. What part of killing homosexuals for being abominable is not homophobic?
Disagreeing with homosexual behaviour does not mean you have a neurotic fear of people with whatever degree of homosexual orientation - I think that makes the point.
What would you call commanding their death?
I have in mind to write a post sometime soon about how we view scripture, because it's such a locus of misunderstanding and misrepresentation.
That would be interesting. Can you do it without your particular preconceptions that god is love (clearly not borne out in scripture) Maybe you could justify how god is not evil in a way human's cant comprehend (assuming he exists - as your outlook demands.
Let me just say here that a starting point is to view the bible not simplistically and naively as a flat pack how-to manual or instruction book, but as a library of books charting man's grappling with the nature of God and his ways, and the progressive revelation of God to people.
Bet you cant justify that! Other theologies disagree too - the joys of theology. (PS, a lot of the stories are made up -flood, jericho, exodus for example). Personally, I see the hand of man all over the bible, but maybe we will have more of that later.
Had to comment. My experience of the power and beauty of Scripture and the God revealed there, ultimately in Christ, is too great to allow your view here Billy to go unchallenged.
Personally, I think the message that you are morally inferior to a baby killing god - and deserve eternal suffering from conception - anything but beautiful. Just like the fact that you are then forced to accept that god must have created disease too - and evil. You are being highly subjective here. Maybe now that I have ruffled your feathers, you will provide arguments and not lazily say I dont understand.
Even if you do think that's just my opinion.
That seems to ignore the majority of the bible.
Come on Bruce, you have been complaining for ages that faith is not irrational. How can I take that seriously when you never deliver any justification of your views.
Hope you dont take the tone personally here.
BTW, Philip still hasn't delivered my tea - what a wonderfully caring keyboard I have to answer my prayer every day by letting me know that i'm either not getting the tea, or not getting it yet :-)
"the bible is a vile homophobic book written by genocidal bronze age bigots"
A fine turn of phrase billy - the conciseness of which I would be proud !
I look forward to your post on scripture bruce. Did I ever give you that "CSLewis on scripture book" I really enjoyed that.
I must say when it comes to the bible I see its value in as much as raising questions as providing answers. I would find it hard to form such an objective opinion as billy's. But I would equally disagree with the opposite of his argument. How could it be construed ?
"the bible is a beautiful sexually enlightening book crafted by life affirming and minds endwelled by the wisdom of a forgotten age"
objectively I could never see the bible as even worthy of discussion as without my knowledge of it would ,rather obviously , be unknowable to me. Ultimately the person reading the bible is more important to me than
the book itself. Can you get something out of it or not ?
Billy seems only to get fuel for his fire of argument. Like Bruce I have a warmer response but in my opinion the bible can be taken too far. Bibliolatry is about as common as response as misbiblism - is that a word. I dont think its the book thats in the dark - I think its the people who read it - myself included.
Rob.
westboro baptist church site , Billy ? Just checked your weblink -yeah their minister is completely insane. I watched the Louis Theroux interview - it was far out. The minister of Westboro is the one who belives the whole of sweden is going to hell ? Have you seen this clip - made me laugh
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XW4Ym9IS7Ks&feature=related
rob
Hi Bruce,
OK, I’ll add a little more, since I know how you love my point by point breakdowns – just one point this time - but more will follow in time of course. (However, I will try and go at your speed :) )
here's a comment I wrote in response to Jonathan's post on 'Musings' top right, 'Science and its limits: Chapter Seven', March 8th. It expresses some of my recent thoughts about faith.
Erm… more faith talk? I didn’t need to get far into your post did I?
So on this topic, you still have not acknowledged my questions about the “power of faith” (let alone responded to it) – admittedly they were directed at Jimmy originally so I can forgive you for missing them.
(Just comments on your blog after all)
My questions once again then…
(Cut and paste twice in “"Insight from a volcano" and now here – also repeated several times on Jonathan’s blog so I am really sorry for boring everyone else with these same questions. I don’t even know if they are good and valid questions to ask. Remember, I’ve never had religious faith so I cannot see any "obvious" value in it)
Bruce, please tell me if my questions are stupid or wrong… at the very least, can you please just acknowledge you have read and understood the questions (and then maybe tell me why I am wrong later?).
Anyway, here they are again (the question in bold is the most interesting one to me).
How do you test the bible and your faith in it?
Science tests their ideas – how do you test your faith?
If faith is so great at finding the truth, why is it when people use only their faith they get different answers, they get different conclusions, they follow different gods and religion?
All religions cannot be right, but it is faith that brought them to their conclusions.
Faith has a problem... Just wishing it does not make it so…
I should not say much more until this faith question is acknowledged (and maybe “resolved”?) – you seem to value faith so much at getting at the truth (more than the scientific method?) Yet faith clearly has a problem in the real world – faith does not bring people to the same conclusions, they are different – two conflicting conclusions cannot both be right. Yet this is what faith does when used to “find the truth”. Add to this problem, how do you prove to someone their faith in a conclusion is wrong?
Can you help me solve these problems on faith first BEFORE I am I to accept faith as a solution to anything?
Cheers
Lee
I'm away till Weds checking out accom options in Bradford - don't get funny now folks. Cheers for dropping back in Rob, I'll just point out the Musings blog top right is an open unmoderated discussion forum so in my absence feel free to carry on discussion there since I want to maintain moderation. I think you may understand that :)
Rob,
What exactly do you believe? It seems that you dont really adhere to the bible and make it up as you go along.
The minister of Westboro is the one who belives the whole of sweden is going to hell ? Have you seen this clip - made me laugh
Not just Sweden. They do actually construct their beliefs around the bible though.
I dont think its funny. They are a particularly nasty brainwashing cult who appeal to many.
Bruce, please tell me if my questions are stupid or wrong…
Let me step in. They are not stupid and cut to the very heart of the matter, which is why as you have no doubt noticed, most theists when asked dont respond.
Billy, just to say I think this latest heated-ness is rather rooted in your original rather inflammatory comment about the bible (though I do with Rob see the funny side). So I think we can all seek to be careful in choice of words.
And I would want to just add that it seems pretty clear to me that our vastly diverging views eg God as Love (me) v God as evil - if he exists at all (you) are far from being merely intellectual disagreement, but have their roots at least partly in differing experience and response to experience. You simply cannot ignore or sideline the very human dimension to the formation of basic views, attitudes and approaches in life (which is no bad thing).
Hi Bruce,
A break from the tradition from me – I will not response “point by point” since it seems to frustrates you (for reasons I honestly do not understand).
I’m not here to frustrate, but to learn – to try and learn how a theist thinks and why.
I will however try and address your points the best I can. (If I miss anything, sorry, it is because I am not going "point by point")
Your last post seem to contain a lot of frustration - maybe a trip to Bradford can cause that :)
You state that I am demanding a response – and in a way I am, but merely because without such a response I cannot continue a debate/discussion with you.
I do not then see, or understand, the frustration that you write of then.
Do you wish to have an open discussion on faith and religion or not?
If you just wish to preach your views and not listen or response to the challenges from others – then there is nothing left to debate, this would be sad, but the way it goes sometimes.
Your recent responses to us here have been about faith, and how we should accept (and use) faith as a valid means (solution) to understand “truth” about the world.
At this point in the discussion I can neither agree or disagree WITHOUT an understanding first of faith and the value of which you speak. I have questioned this, and wait a response.
I cannot see the angry that this raises, or how by ignoring the questions you feel the discussion can continue.
An analogy?:
If I cannot explain the value of adding a pint of tomato sauce to the finest meal bought at the finest restaurant – then I should not expect you to follow my lead now should I?
In fact, without a valid argument, you would be right to think it is “odd” (wrong in fact) that my idea of improving a meal is merely to add a pint of tomato sauce to it.
This is the same with your “faith solution” – I do not understand it and want it clarifying from you first - why I should consider it (and not just from some book). You should be personally able to explain the value of adding a pint of tomato sauce to a meal BEFORE you expect me to try it. It is after all, your choice to do so - and not some book forcing you.
Seems fair? Does the analogy make sense?
I know you are busy, I know you have other priorities – I’ve no problem in that. (I will be more busy this next month or so and will not be replying as much myself. So no problems)
I am not wishing to chain you to your keyboard until you respond. I merely ask that you respect the time and effort I and others put into our responses, and be kind enough, in your own time, to respond to the questions and points raised.
There are other blogs and forums I can used to fill in my time while I wait, so I have no problem with waiting - so long as I know that you plan to respond in time. Tell me if our discussion are at an end is all I ask.
I am glad you are enjoying your reading of the Hans Kung book – but you know I cannot get my hands on it.
Instead, as you know, I listen to lectures and debates on my MP3 player while on the train – I personally find listening to debates where “great” theists and atheists discuss points of philosophy, theology and science very interesting.
By listening to these balanced debates I am hearing both sides of the argument, from great minds, and so I find it very useful as a learning aid.
This is why I find claims that I not “engaging” in such literature or teachings insulting – I have already read a book that you recommended, and many other books that you have not - it does not help in friendly discussions if you insult the person you are debating.
I don’t think I have made any demands that you should read more astronomy books - to understand the physics involved in the universe – before we can continue an open debate? I may recommend it, but I certainly do not insult your intelligence for not reading such literature, so please, please don’t lower yourself and make such accusations against the people here.
Also, and more importantly on this matter, do not make the mistake (fallacy) that because I do not have a PhD in theology or whatever that I cannot point out some flaws in some of the ideas you quote from these books (I have done so on other threads here, and they are still unchallenged from you for some reason?)
If I am wrong, then surely with the “kind of reading” you have been undertaking recently, you should easily be able to put my childish and invalid arguments in their rightful place – if you cannot do so, do not ask to see my qualifications for making such an argument, I don’t need any, it is my argument you should be attacking my qualifications.
I hope you are not putting your “shields up” in these discussions, it would be a shame. I hoped for open and honest questioning and debating.
OK... enough said. I think that was another “soapbox moment” from me, and I am getting bored of doing them - so lets just move into a discussion and debate on a topic that is not about the person.
Thanks
Lee
Hi Lee, I've just read both your last comments, thanks for them. I'd already decided to delete my last long comment because, I acknowledge, I did get unnecessarily and fruitlessly angry, and I apologise for that. I was quite tired, hadn't slept too well, so I need to avoid writing in that state. Feel free to tell me if I'm going off the rails, though I think I generally realise myself soon after and 'self-correct'. Your comments add to my sense of penitence!
Unfortunately, I have by contrast found some of Billy's recent comments rather inflammatory and provocative, and have chosen not to post them because without an immediate response from me possible, it wd make me quite angry them being there; not an attack on Billy though.
Lee your qs on faith are valid and good, you address them in a measured tone and with evident desire to explore not just attack - which I'm afraid Billy is how your last comments came across - and so I will do what I can to address them bit by bit.
Lee
Giving up the point by point breakdown - I like the idea. Im all for the softness of a flowing response.
Im interested in your tomato sauce analogy ? I'll also be clear Im interested in the psychology of unbelief - why not ? I suppose that echoes you question - why ?
But rather than answer your question - I'll try and answer mine - just for the sake of a challenge.
Ive hinted at this in my previous replies. Why unbelief ? Why take recourse to the scientific method above all else ?
One nice thing about atheism is without a god there is in short one less thing to worry about. Thats very helpful if your ideas of god are as troublesome as billys. There sort of God billy seems to wrestle with it is probably best that no one believes in him. Billy seems to want to know what I believe as if he would then know the name of my controlling ideology. That is the problem: controlling and distorted ideologies. If you are going to be throttled by ideas its best you have as few of them as possible. If you are going to try and hurt and stifle others with them - its better you cant think.
Buddha seems to have echoed this line in his teaching - especially as it was developed by zen buddhism. Forget the big god issues and concentrate on the small human everyday ones. It seems to have worked very well - I have always been impressed by the practical sincerity of disciplined buddhists.
So I can see the potential productiveness atheism - although I might add unbelief is part of the christian story - no one considered St.Thomas to no longer be a disciple because he didnt believe in the resurection. I genuinely think athiesm can offer people some clarity and piece of mind.
However Jesus also tried to boil things down without losing the concept of a transcendental god. His simple was to love your neighbour as yourself - to empty yourself and look out on the world with humility and respect. The difference with Buddha is he left the big god in the equation - although he did place a new stress the immanence of a god which could illuminate and guide individuals - perhaps his attempt to counterbalance the traditional tendancy of theism to fossilise into a transcendental fanaticism controlled by a fanatical hierachy.
Overall his support for theism might not have been a decision based on realism - after all the image of a transcendental god was even in his time a wonderful tool for manipulation and control. However difficult hill climbs often offer better views.
You tomato sauce analogy assumes you have it all the perfect meal. As Ive made clear before my reason for embracing theism is simple because : it gives more courses at the table - more methods = more knowledge
The scientific method is great but it doesnt encompass any of the other more traditional approaches to knowledge. To me it is shrunken thinking. I simply cant understand it.
I watched an interesting interview with a Zen Buddist who had become a Catholic - If you will casually accept that these are ritualised versions of atheism and theism. When asked what had she given up when she became a catholic she said nothing. She had simply added another whole realm of knowledge and understanding to her life.
I realise theism might screw many people up - lets call it a souffle. Its quite hard to make. A lot of people foul it up but I really can recommend it as a desert. But just as their are rules of souffle making - there are rules of good theism. As I have said one of Jesus' was that you see god as inside as well as outside of you - in that way you can hope to blow off the maddening cry of whatever crazy weirdo is belowing at you from westboro baptist church. Also Jesus; focus was not on an intellectualised god - keep it simple - a path a way of action - hypocrisy is easier to see if your central aim is to love and care for others.
Theism crushes many people because they dont really have this practicality or inner ballast - they have no root or sense of balance. They lack the classical virtues and so the theological virtues just add to the misery. Archbishop Runcie said chistianity was like a swimming pool - its the shallow end which makes all the noise. Or rather a lot of people spoil the souffle.
I would never recommend you spoil your main meal with cheap tomato sauce , I dont question its taste or its nutritional value, but I really can recommend the desert - the sum bonum. "I am come that you might have life and that you might have it more abundantly". If you want to think Jesus came to stone queers - go ahead knock yourself out.
Rob
Cheers Rob, I love the souffle and swimming pool ideas!
I should just add that, since it's been waiting for about two and a half years, I'm going to prioritise for the next wee while responding to a family member's document about Christianity. But I will try and offer at least one pithy thought in response to the questions here, every other day or few days or so...
Rob - you sidestepped the evil god issue!
I'm still none the wiser about what you believe
There sort of God billy seems to wrestle with it is probably best that no one believes in him.
You mean the one of the bible? The one George Bush, Ted Haggard, Pat Robertson etc all follow.
One nice thing about atheism is without a god there is in short one less thing to worry about. Thats very helpful if your ideas of god are as troublesome as billys.
And what is troublesome about my idea of your god? Did he kill babies or not? Do you yhink that is good?
Do you think I am an atheist because of having one less thing to worry about?
Billy seems to want to know what I believe as if he would then know the name of my controlling ideology.
And where do you get that idea from - is this another unsubstantiated opinion of someone you dont know - like the very vocal opinion you had on Dawkins without reading him?
My reasons for asking is to make sure I know what you believe first. There is no point discussing biblical literalism or creationism if they are not your bag afterall - is there? Then you mention buddhism - so what do you believe?
I realise theism might screw many people up - lets call it a souffle.
Perhaps because god doesnt intervene?
However, what does that have to do with the truth or otherwise of its claims?
The scientific method is great but it doesnt encompass any of the other more traditional approaches to knowledge. To me it is shrunken thinking. I simply cant understand it.
What are these other forms? (see why I asked what you believe)
This is the most important question though; "what validates them an a means of knowing anything?"
How many times do we have to ask theists to drop the scientific atheism straw man - DO I NEED SCIENTIFIC PROOF YOU EXIST?
If god actually interacted with me, then that would be evidence enough - he/she/it however does not - science does not have to disprove him - you have to prove him.
As I have said one of Jesus' was that you see god as inside as well as outside of you - in that way you can hope to blow off the maddening cry of whatever crazy weirdo is belowing at you from westboro baptist church.
I'm affraid it doesnt work. Christians cant agree on what the "true jesus" is. You are placing your own values on him - just like pro-gay chrstians or misogynistic ones do.
Where is the truth in such diverse subjective views of him?
How can you ignore the gay killing side of him? How do you justify that compartmentalisation?
Hi Bruce,
Happy Good Friday and all that - did you know that there is a church group in Australia who wants to get rid of Good Friday as a public holiday??? I’m not happy about that… anyway, that’s not the point.
No need to thank me for my posts, you get them from me whether you want them or not.
It seems that not using my usual point by point response style is being encouraged on this blog in order to bring in the “softness of a flowing response” – OK, I will try my best to do so on long replies like this, but hope you forgive me when I use it on short comments when I am pushed for time :)
I’m glad you feel like I do that my questions on faith are valid – it needs to be explained to someone like me how and why you feel it works. Enough said on the subject from me for now, I will wait for your reply in time and respond further then.
++++++++
Hi Rob,
Glad you like my tomato Ketchup analogy – as with all analogies, it is not perfect, and can be twisted to mean something else.
The point I was trying to make is that someone needs to tell me why I need to add something to my solution when it value has not been shown or explained.
The analogy can be taken further by thinking that with too much ketchup, it clouds over the real meal and you cannot taste anything but the sauce.
Some people need a little sauce, some people don’t need it at all – too much is a bad thing since the real meal is lost.
(And who mentioned dessert? Tom Sauce and cake? Yuck - are you pregnant man? Sounds like something the wife would try...)
I think it’s a nice analogy I invented – maybe I could write a book on it?
It does not BTW assume I have the perfect meal as you say; it works nice on fish and chips as well.
You say theism gives you more courses? Well, they seem a little like a child’s pretend tea party if you cannot show them to be real.
My meals you can stick a fork into them (you should try my soup)… adding sauce is a choice I do not need to apply.
You asked about the “psychology of unbelief” – are you asking me why I don’t believe?
You can answer this yourself surely – you are a Christian aren’t you? You therefore know what it is like to have no belief in Zeus, Woden, Allah and a thousand other gods… it is an old argument, but seems valid still.
You know all the reasons why you reject all these other gods, I’ve just also listened to the answers from a Muslim and rejected the Christian one as well :)
As for having “one less thing to worry about”, maybe you are right on one level since I feel I have a thousand less things to worry about, by being a believer of a god (any god) you have to be certain you have selected the right one and following this god correctly – I don’t have that problem as you said.
It’s great… freedom.
Your point regarding Billy replies - If the God of the bible were true, as written clearly in the bible (especially in the OT) – why would I want to worship such a god? Would you worship Stalin or Hitler? If you lived under those regimes? You may be forced to follow, you may have little or no choice, but worship? Surely not…
And as for the scientific method – can you think of a better one? Until you do, I will use the best method man has devised for finding the truth thanks (and my question on faith is an open one if you wish to enter into it)
I know science's limits – I do not claim it gives absolutes or “full answers” but it is the best we have until proven otherwise.
You say that that it “doesnt encompass any of the other more traditional approaches to knowledge” – Does it need to? Has any of these other approaches been shown to work and to be valid? Please tell me about them, and we will put them to the test.
”shrunken thinking”? No – it is more focused and efficient thinking because it does not add what is not required.
The you raised story of St. (doubting) Thomas is an interesting one.
Here was a man who was said to have known Jesus directly for some period of time, heard his teachings from the main man himself – saw the miracles, presumably saw the 3 hours of darkness, dead saints getting up and making themselves know and felt the earthquakes etc etc at the crucifixion… yet still doubted Jesus when he was right in front of him – come on. If such a man can doubt Jesus’ resurrection 3 days after being told he was coming back in just this fashion then 2,000 years on I should expect a little more from God Almighty to prove his existence to modern man.
Why is that unreasonable given this story from the Gospel?
Then you mention the teachings of Jesus – well, much of the good bits where already preached by other people long before, so nothing new there. If only Jesus could have given some divine knowledge to his disciples to prove his God to others 2,000 years on who could not see the miracles directly. At least Jesus could have been clear which laws from the OT to keep and reject would have been nice. As for the bad bits of Jesus’ teachings… well, another time.
And with your last point about “stoning queers” - since you mentioned it for some reason – this teaching is not written in any book I follow – can you say the same? Does Jesus clearly state that this act should not be done and being gay is OK with him?
Lee
Rob - you sidestepped the evil god issue!
Have I ? Ive said that there is a potential within theism for picturing and stumbling over the idea of an evil god - there is also the potential within christianity for discipleship and moral development. There is potential either way. Theism uses more knowledge methods than atheism. Its a harder route with more room for disaster. In my opinion of course.
Most of your arguments to me billy seem to boil down to grabbing some disputed point and saying "this has to be this". The church beats people who dont pray in school, the god of the bible stones queers, religion is blind supersition. The problem is your building a tower of arguments on one sided ideologues. You talk about strawman but you dont have the ability to soft the wheat from the chaff on any issue. All your statements are one sided assertions - second hand stones - you dont debate you just hand round your own stumbling blocks. Did you ever read about billy goat gruff who swallowed all the rocks ?
The problem is all these ideas you have are just dogmatisms - one sided assertions of broken jigsaws pieces. Its what an individual makes of knowledge that determines him as a person - no system theism or atheism will ever take away that difficulty.
You continually talk about the truth like it is some sort of idealised and tangible concept. What do you plan to do with such a sword - why do you need such a weapon - did a bible fall on you when you were young ? Why do you bother to harass such a civilised and generous thiest as Bruce. Cant you contact mr phelps at westboro baptist church. The two of you could lock horns in a lift and be happy for ever. Billy goat gruff and the mad preacher - together you could make a little picture of unity.
Why do you think I evade telling you my beliefs or resist your point by point arguments - It would simply be throwing a dog a bone...
Does discrepancy among christians bother you ? Imagine that ! people have different views of Jesus. Should we all have the same ? - You want one great seemless tradition of knowledge - there is only one great tradition and that is human frailty - it transcends all ideologies ! Either you are down with that and want to learn - or your resisting it to the point of madness - trying to find a truth to hide in. Really billy with your depersonalised generalisations you would make calvin proud.
Its all very modernist - "big thinking" - deciding for other people that religion must be bad for them - rooting it out of society like some sort of proud patrician. Because you cant see the potential of anything. You dont see people you just see ideas.
You should have been born a reformer billy - you and Calvin would have gone far together. Get a copy of "The believer" on DVD - you seem to be the protestant version of Ryan Goslings jewish character.
Well in my opinion of course.
Rob
Rob
There is potential either way. Theism uses more knowledge methods than atheism. Its a harder route with more room for disaster.
Which you have not validated - nor has any theist I have asked. Surley if something is not rooted in reality, it is more of a recipie for disaster?
Most of your arguments to me billy seem to boil down to grabbing some disputed point
And why do theists dispute points if they are rooted in truth?
and saying "this has to be this
If you read my posts properly, you will see that is not what I am saying.
The church beats people who dont pray in school, the god of the bible stones queers, religion is blind supersition.
All very true, but I believe I only mentioned the third one. The god of the bible does "stone queers", but I am not as you seem to imply advocating you do likewise. I am saying you are being highly selective in what you believe about your god - who has for want of a better phrase a totally vile and repulsive side. Perhaps you could try and harmonise this with the loving view that you selectivly hold to. Personally, I think the bible is a very poor guide for relationships.
The problem is your building a tower of arguments on one sided ideologues.
No, I am saying that you are cherry picking the bible and ignoring the bits you dont like - can you show otherwise?
All your statements are one sided assertions - second hand stones - you dont debate you just hand round your own stumbling blocks.
That's pretty funny. Does that pass as a rebuttal of my points?
Its what an individual makes of knowledge that determines him as a person - no system theism or atheism will ever take away that difficulty.
I'm sorry, but this is all rather hand flapping airy-fairy stuff. What does difficulty have to do with the fact you cherry pick.
I asked you to justify that the god of the bible is not an evil monster - I await your response - you seem reluctant to debate despite the groundless accuastions you make against me on that front
You continually talk about the truth like it is some sort of idealised and tangible concept.
I dont think I do - read carefully!
Why do you bother to harass such a civilised and generous thiest as Bruce.
Erm, because he specifically emailed me to comment on his blog - is that OK with you?
Why do you think I evade telling you my beliefs or resist your point by point arguments - It would simply be throwing a dog a bone...
I understand. You cant defend them, and you want to save face. Fair enough. Do you feel threatened by questions?
Does discrepancy among christians bother you ?
No, I find it rather sad - especially when they talk about absolutes. They cant all be absolutly right.
Should we all have the same ?
Well, if the bible was actually consistent, it wouldn't be too much to ask now, would it. Paul even chastises believers for their lack of unity amongst no believers. There is more chance of getting agreement on what would bruce do than what would jesus do - maybe that's because we talk to him and he replies - we have seen him in action - he is very definately real.
there is only one great tradition and that is human frailty - it transcends all ideologies !
I dont think Bruce will allow me to say exactly what I think of that comment, but it has nothing to do with seeking truth.
Either you are down with that and want to learn - or your resisting it to the point of madness - trying to find a truth to hide in. Really billy with your depersonalised generalisations you would make calvin proud.
Sorry Rob, does this actually make sense to anyone other than you. How does this adress any of the questions I have asked you. Is it possible that you could avoid just throwing words together in a meaningless string for once and actually debate instead of rant incoherently?
Its all very modernist - "big thinking" - deciding for other people that religion must be bad for them
Gosh, now where did I say that? Looks like Dawkins is not the only one you haven't read yet hold strong opinions about.
Because you cant see the potential of anything. You dont see people you just see ideas.
Yeah, that's me all over, you have clearly read everything I have said carefully (sarcasm).
So Rob, do you want to start over and debate, or are you just going to make up stuff about me?
The choice is yours.
Article of interest from last Saturday's Guardian: 'The atheist delusion':
http://books.guardian.co.uk/
departments/
politicsphilosophyandsociety/story/
0,,2265446,00.html
A link already posted by me at Jonathon's blog Bruce! Did you check out the Labryinth at St.Silas today? Really was excellent.
Hi Bruce,
Thanks for the link - I've already read it and posted a comment on Jonathan's blog somewhere.
Lee
Cheers CB, yes it was good.
Oh and Rob, I forgot to say I have seen 'CS Lewis on scripture', though it's been a while.
And thanks for the Good Friday thought Lee.
Night folks.
Ok, today I'm just going to copy one of the first paragraphs I starred from 'Does God exist?' by Hans Kung. From the first section on 'Reason or faith?' (both are seen as needed for full apprehension of truth):
After a section on Descartes, Blaise Pascal is examined. I found Pascal especially inspiring to read about.
'Principles, then, are sensed intuitively with the heart, but propositions are logical conclusions established by reason: "and both with certainty though by different means." Does not all this make clear the limits of reason? "It is just as pointless and absurd for reason to demand proof of first principles from the heart before agreeing to accept them as it would be absurd for the heart to demand an intuition of all the propositions demonstrated by reason before agreeing to accept them. Our inability must therefore serve only to humble reason, which would like to be the judge of everything, but not to confute our certainty. As if reason were the only way we could learn!" Could the importance AND limits of purely ratioanl certainty be more clearly stated?' p50.
I won't just be quoting from this book, but will in my contribution to this discussion probably draw from it quite a lot.
Ok, today I'm just going to copy one of the first paragraphs I starred from 'Does God exist?' by Hans Kung. From the first section on 'Reason or faith?' (both are seen as needed for full apprehension of truth):
After a section on Descartes, Blaise Pascal is examined. I found Pascal especially inspiring to read about.
'Principles, then, are sensed intuitively with the heart, but propositions are logical conclusions established by reason: "and both with certainty though by different means." Does not all this make clear the limits of reason? "It is just as pointless and absurd for reason to demand proof of first principles from the heart before agreeing to accept them as it would be absurd for the heart to demand an intuition of all the propositions demonstrated by reason before agreeing to accept them. Our inability must therefore serve only to humble reason, which would like to be the judge of everything, but not to confute our certainty. As if reason were the only way we could learn!" Could the importance AND limits of purely ratioanl certainty be more clearly stated?' p50.
I won't just be quoting from this book, but will in my contribution to this discussion probably draw from it quite a lot.
Bruce - this basically says you have to by into the heart first - it does not justify why you should - it is presuppositionalist. Would you buy into islam without a reaon?
I also disagree strongly that pinciples are intuitive - but then maybe you are using a different definition to something like the principle of uniformitariansism, which is backed up by evidence.
Billy
If you discount philosophy (not just theology) how can any of us "validate" anything? What about political ideologies; are they all equally in/valid?
So Billy I can make stuff up or debate. Interesting. You seem to separate the two like one is acceptable and the other is not. The objectively rational vs the subjective and irrational.So the offer of debate seems rather dull -a bit too grown up for me. Making things up about you - pulling ideas and seeing how they stick - how you resoind - its a valueable way of learning. Quid Pro Quo. Have you ever read or heard of the bacchae by euripides ? What do you think of Pentheus ?
Constraining myself into other peoples expectations of rationality does seem a little dehumanising and this will be my last post for a while.
You see the type of rational discussion you are looking for is itself so paralysingly one sided I dont think I have the hunger to engage in it. Im being honest - there is no need to attach a value judgement to that.
But there is a recurrent question from Billy and Lee that I will attempt to answer off pat - before i get back to flooring my loft. You see Lee I like the hard tangible things of life as well ! These are only personal reflections...
You seem to be concerned with moral problems in the christian tradition. The strange thing is it isnt for either of you actually a moral problem. You dont want to stone queers. You dont have a problem at all you know what to do.
Now presumably you think christian theism must be invalidated because it is not a seemless tradition which matches your moral compass - it doesnt have the thunderstuck factor. Thanks for you note on Thomas Lee Im always suprised how two people can see exactly the same story in a completely different light.
But Why does this tradition have to be perfect. It only has to be perfect if you are looking for an external authority - if you are looking for somesort of proof.
But here is where your scientific method is dogging your thinking. In my opinion of course. Jesus seems to have engaged a lot with the religuious leaders of his time who thought authority had to be objectified externalised and proven by venerable tradition. I think thats a really dangerous religious methodology. Looking for hard fast rules in religion is just childs stuff - or nazi stuff whatever way you want to see it.
This might be airy fairy for you billy. You might call it cherry picking. But basically if a thought form works - if it makes you a more whole - if it intuitively explains and holds together meaning in your life - take it and work with it. I forget the latin term for it as a way of knowledge - Its in Julius evola's writings. In my opinion theology is an imaginative exercise which is ironically rooted in the past. The glaring mistakes of the past could be seen by one person as a reason for disbelief by another as a ground for humility. Tell me how does one piece of poetry appear more real than others?
What I was trying to say about disputed points billy is they are exactly that disputed. They can go either way. So what do you do with them when you put them together ?What is the whole - what is the big picture - is it coherent is - it rational - is it humane. Gestalt psychology as a methodoly in personal religion is what I might be proposing . If that is cherry picking so be it. Gestalt theory would say such a view is important to you Lee and Billy maintaing a whole view of the world. People create different views of the world as we all have different bodies in the world.
I dont understand why either Lee or Billy dont have that will to dream - why they seem to think its childish. But if that is a central support to their mental psychology I wouldnt be the one to pull the whole house down.
You see I dont see jesus as a primarily ideological person - yes he works with big ideas - god and others but he doesnt impress an ideology but a method. Yes That is my opinion. But I dont see the need to have the rest of the world agree with me any more than I want them to look like me.
There is always the possibility fo stand off in any debate. The cardinal one in this seems to be the no-god boys want a certain form of knowledge by a certain means. Sorry but your net is big and might catch the tuna steak but I'm afraid the slippery sardines of theology will continue to escape your net.
Do either of you - Lee and Billy ever read much poetry or do you prefer to stay in and play with your calculators :)
Have a happy easter all. Thats my last post for a while. Thanks for the banter - esp Billy and Lee.
Rob.
p.s. bruce do you know about the piece of paper pascal kept sewn inside his coat throughout later life - it detailed his conversion experience ?
Hi Ryan,
If you discount philosophy (not just theology) how can any of us "validate" anything? What about political ideologies; are they all equally in/valid?
In the absence of any absolutes, I would have to say they all contain equal value - as ideologies.
Rob
So Billy I can make stuff up or debate. Interesting. You seem to separate the two like one is acceptable and the other is not.
Well, one is an attempt to investigate reality, the other is just projecting unsubstantiated claims on to me - go figure!
The objectively rational vs the subjective and irrational.So the offer of debate seems rather dull -a bit too grown up for me.
Oh well, see ya!
Have you ever read or heard of the bacchae by euripides ? What do you think of Pentheus ?
Yes, a long time ago.I believe it had something to do with Zeus getting his mum pregnant - your point is?
Interesting that Bacchus (the Roman equivalent of Dionysis) was born of a virgin to the head god, decended to the underworld on some saviour mission and returned - sound familiar? Oh, and wine was involved in his worship too.
Constraining myself into other peoples expectations of rationality does seem a little dehumanising and this will be my last post for a while.
Ah, there we go again, making things up by assuming I am restricting you - you are of course free to provide any evidence you deem important - but strangely, you accuse me of constraining you. Still waiting for a point somewhere in all this. Oh well, lets read on and see.....
You see the type of rational discussion you are looking for is itself so paralysingly one sided I dont think I have the hunger to engage in it. Im being honest - there is no need to attach a value judgement to that.
Nope, still more misrepresentations - dont you have something you base your faith in then - it seems a desperate attempt to accuse in order to avoid.
Oh, and you are starting to repeat yourself.
You seem to be concerned with moral problems in the christian tradition.
well, that and one or two other things.....
The strange thing is it isnt for either of you actually a moral problem. You dont want to stone queers. You dont have a problem at all you know what to do.
Now, honestly Rob, the bible says you should stone homosexuals - I personally am disgusted by that, and I really hope you take the next bit in this time - IT IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE IDEA OF A LOVING GOD!
Now presumably you think christian theism must be invalidated because it is not a seemless tradition which matches your moral compass - it doesnt have the thunderstuck factor.
No, it invalidates the idea of a loving god - try and pay more attention to what is being said. This provides a consistency problem with christianity which makes it even more likely that the jewish tradition (and other myths - eg dionysis)were hijacked and modified by christianity. One is not a natural extention of the other, otherwise the supposedly unchanging nature of god would be just that.
But Why does this tradition have to be perfect. It only has to be perfect if you are looking for an external authority - if you are looking for somesort of proof.
And thats the point - it is supposed to reflect the absolute moral nature of an external authority - god! Or is that another bad theology held by most christians?
But here is where your scientific method is dogging your thinking. In my opinion of course. Jesus seems to have engaged a lot with the religuious leaders of his time who thought authority had to be objectified externalised and proven by venerable tradition. I think thats a really dangerous religious methodology. Looking for hard fast rules in religion is just childs stuff - or nazi stuff whatever way you want to see it.
Most astounding, and the bible says god's laws are perfect too - so do you actually follow the bible. You also seem to make the assumption that jesus actually had something valid to say here. He actually contradicted many OT laws here - eg punishments for sabbath breaking and adultry - but we are getting off the topic of whether god is evil or good. If I lived a life that was morally good except for having a penchant for killing gays, would you consider me good or bad?
You might call it cherry picking. But basically if a thought form works - if it makes you a more whole - if it intuitively explains and holds together meaning in your life - take it and work with it.
But does that make it right? What if I found racism worked for me? Would you still think your plea valid? Of course not - you dont thnk racism is good philosophy (I hope).
take it and work with it. I forget the latin term for it as a way of knowledge
It is a way of life, not a way of knowledge.
In my opinion theology is an imaginative exercise which is ironically rooted in the past. The glaring mistakes of the past could be seen by one person as a reason for disbelief by another as a ground for humility. Tell me how does one piece of poetry appear more real than others?
Sounds like you are saying it has NOTHING to do with god. Are you also suggesting it may not be real?
How does any of this justify belief in god as being true? (Hint: it doesn't)
Gestalt theory would say such a view is important to you Lee and Billy maintaing a whole view of the world. People create different views of the world as we all have different bodies in the world.
But that doesn't make it real! It also means that Paedophilia is just as valid as christianity - looks like you are arguing relativism - I thought the bible was all about absolutes - otherwise, the fall would not be an issue - there would be no need for propitiation. God would deem all moral views good - your view seems to deny all this.
Sorry but your net is big and might catch the tuna steak but I'm afraid the slippery sardines of theology will continue to escape your net.
Because you make it up as you go along? You are still just saying that you have a personal way of living - you have not demonstrated it is true - or even a plausible possibility.
Do either of you - Lee and Billy ever read much poetry or do you prefer to stay in and play with your calculators :)
Numbers dont exist either. They are an abstract concept.
Enjoy your hijacked pagan festival :-)
Bruce,
This is pascal's pocket note - I dont know if your familiar with this bruce - It made quite an impression on me when I read it in my teens. Stephen Dickie bought me the book...
On This Day --Pascal's Night of Fire
On this day, November 23, in 1654 Blaise Pascal had a dramatic encounter with God. He wrote of his experience, and sewed it into the liner of his coat. It wasn't until after his death that people learned of this and realized everywhere he went Pascal carried this experience with him. This encounter has become known as "Pascal's Night of Fire."
Here is "The Memorial":
The year of grace 1654
Monday, 23 November, feast of Saint Clement, Pope and Martyr, and of others in the Martyrology.
Eve of Saint Chrysogonus, Martyr and others.
From about half past ten in the evening until half past midnight.
Fire
'God of Abraham, God of Isaac, God of Jacob,' not of philosophers and scholars.
Certainty, certainty, heartfelt, joy, peace.
God of Jesus Christ.
God of Jesus Christ.
My God and your God.
'Thy God shall be my God.'
The world forgotten, and everything except God.
He can only be found by the ways taught in the Gospels.
Greatness of the human soul.
'O righteous Father, the world had not known thee, but I have known thee.'
Joy, joy, joy, tears of joy.
I have cut myself off from him.
They have forsaken me, the fountain of living waters.
'My God wilt thou forsake me?'
Let me not be cut off from him for ever!
And this is life eternal, that they might know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.'
Jesus Christ.
Jesus Christ.
I have cut myself off from him, shunned him, denied him, crucified him.
Let me never be cut off from him!
He can only be kept by the ways taught in the Gospel.
Sweet and total renunciation.
Total submission to Jesus Christ and my director.
Everlasting joy in return for one day's effort on earth.
I will not forget thy word. Amen.
Hi Rob, cheers, yes Kung's book talks about Pascal's night of fire, but doesn't give the full quote so thanks for that. Had a bit of a morning of fire reading about Pascal last Sat. I'd already read most or all of the Pensees years ago... what fascinates is his profound reflections on man's existential predicament, continually fleeing through diversions from thinking about his life, caught between the terrifying infinities of the macro and the micro, the universe and the sub-atomic, capable of self-reflection and noble thought yet riddled with conflicts, a 'ruined glory'. Way to go Pascal!
Happy day of resurrection one and all.
Bruce, a poem by cs lewis - do you know it. It echoes something of pascals struggles :
Oh who will reconcile in me both maid and mother,
Who make in me a concord of the depth and height?
Who make imagination’s dim exploring touch
Ever report the same as intellectual sight?
Then could I truly say, and not deceive,
Then wholly say, that I BELIEVE.
Rob
Hi Rob,
You wrote such a long post, I don’t know where to begin.
If you think I have missed something important, just re-direct me to it again.
I’ll pick the sections I think you directed at me.
But there is a recurrent question from Billy and Lee that I will attempt to answer off pat - before i get back to flooring my loft. You see Lee I like the hard tangible things of life as well ! These are only personal reflections...
Who is Pat, and what has she got to do with the price of fish?
I’m glad you like the “hard tangible things” since I’ve seen no evidence for much else.
Maybe you can tell me what I am missing? Do you want to help Bruce out with the faith question I raised?
You seem to be concerned with moral problems in the christian tradition. The strange thing is it isnt for either of you actually a moral problem. You dont want to stone queers. You dont have a problem at all you know what to do.
I didn’t raise the “moral question” but have no problems discussing it.
I get my morals from a similar place to yours I suspect – we might not agree, but that will be because are upbringing is a little different perhaps.
The bible states that not only is it right to “stone queers” – it is the law or am I miss reading that part of the bible?
I don’t recall anywhere in the bible where this law is overturned either?
Maybe you could point it out to me?
Jesus was never clear which laws were to be kept and which were to be rejected – shame that, it could have saved a lot of suffering for future generations.
Of course, Jesus didn’t know that – in fact, he thought the world was coming to an end within a generation, so we cannot blame the Big J can we... actually I can.
Personally, I have no problems with homosexuals (though I was chatted up once by a homosexual which I didn’t like because he said I looked like George Michael, that’s hurtful - but it is nice to be liked I suppose, I've got long hair now so it will not happen again.)
Homosexuality, biologically speaking, is a dead-end if followed to the letter, but it is a free world, and it is their choice what they follow if it does not hurt anyone.
I do wonder why the bible, if written by God, has such a problem with sex anyway… it would be funny if people didn’t follow it to the letter sometimes.
Now presumably you think christian theism must be invalidated because it is not a seemless tradition which matches your moral compass
What has my “moral compass” have to do with what is true and correct?
Is there a theistic God or not?
No compass required.
Thanks for you note on Thomas Lee Im always suprised how two people can see exactly the same story in a completely different light.
And that is the problem with the bible… it has to be interpreted – debated, there is no “absolute truth” in the bible.
Hence so many people have died throughout history because of it.
But what is wrong with my interpretation? Why am I wrong about doubting Thomas and the requirement of good evidence?
But Why does this tradition have to be perfect.
Let me think for a microsecond… because it is suppose to be the word of God? The one true religion? The one way ticket to heaven (or hell)?
If you are presenting the bible as a book of wisdom written by men 2,000 years ago, that would be different. Mistakes happen, but this isn’t the case is it - it is God's word for some reason?
So what do you think the bible is?
It only has to be perfect if you are looking for an external authority - if you are looking for somesort of proof.
Agree – the bible only has to be perfect if it was supposed to be some sort of evidence for the existence of a theistic God (which a lot of Christian claim is the case, I wonder why you are different?)
So what is the use of the bible – what is it evidence of?
Man’s dream of a god and a law to govern simple people over 2,000 years ago?
But here is where your scientific method is dogging your thinking.
Excellent – now we are talking… tell me where and why I am wrong. I like this in a debate…
In my opinion of course. Jesus seems to have engaged a lot with the religuious leaders of his time who thought authority had to be objectified externalised and proven by venerable tradition. I think thats a really dangerous religious methodology. Looking for hard fast rules in religion is just childs stuff - or nazi stuff whatever way you want to see it.
Just a minute, didn’t you said the bible isn’t perfect, so this means I cannot trust it any more than I do any other 2,000 year old myth written by man? (i.e. not a lot)
Lets be careful then, don’t try and use the bible or any character in it as “fact” or useful unless you can prove it outside of the bible – seems fair?
You said yourself it is not perfect (and that religion isn’t) – it is an old book written by man until shown otherwise.
If you claim it is more than this, then prove it (and I also recommend you re-read what you wrote about its perfection just a moment ago :)
Not sure why you mentioned the Nazis but happy to discuss the regime if you like.
I wonder why the Roman Catholic church didn’t come out and say something against the Nazis at the time, it might have help.
If that is cherry picking so be it. Gestalt theory would say such a view is important to you Lee and Billy maintaing a whole view of the world
Do you expect the whole bible teaching or not?
It is that simple, yes or no?
If you select the bits you want without reason given from the bible, that is cherry picking.
I too can choose the good bits out of the bible, without taking the baggage of the bad.
I am happy to say that to do so is cherry picking. Why can’t you?
(And who is Gestalt?)
People create different views of the world as we all have different bodies in the world. I dont understand why either Lee or Billy dont have that will to dream - why they seem to think its childish. But if that is a central support to their mental psychology I wouldnt be the one to pull the whole house down.
People do create different world views, funny how two Christian’s cannot agree isn’t it?
You have to explain why people using faith cannot agree with one another.
“dreaming”? Interesting you should mention that… isn’t it the theist who is dreaming they know the answers when they clearly don’t?
As for “childish” – you are the first to mention that on this thread I think, so please explain what you mean.
You see I dont see jesus as a primarily ideological person - yes he works with big ideas - god and others but he doesnt impress an ideology but a method. Yes That is my opinion. But I dont see the need to have the rest of the world agree with me any more than I want them to look like me.
So your God and religion is not absolute then? Everyone can have their own personal God, in any colour and flavour they like.
Nice...
Well, this would give us all a perfectly man made God, not likely to be correct at all though.
It is what we see in Christianity at least. You have to laugh.
There is always the possibility fo stand off in any debate. The cardinal one in this seems to be the no-god boys want a certain form of knowledge by a certain means. Sorry but your net is big and might catch the tuna steak but I'm afraid the slippery sardines of theology will continue to escape your net.
That’s rubbish… the net analogy was rubbish when McGrath said it in his book as well. It was a strawman style argument from McGrath, and merely a bad joke from you.
I am looking for evidence, and this is why I ask those who claim they have found it.
You want to claim I reject evidence, well why not try and provide me some.
If I reject it out of hand, without good reason that you will be telling the truth.
If I can tell you why it is bad evidence, don’t come crying to me that you have fallen for a con trick.
Do you believe in alien landings, big foot, the loch Ness monster and the such like?
They ALL have evidence… bucket loads – it is just not very good evidence.
I reject it, and I suspect you do to. The problem is you are not able to analyse the Christian “evidence” with the same openness as you do for every other god you have rejected – why is that?
Do either of you - Lee and Billy ever read much poetry or do you prefer to stay in and play with your calculators :)
An insult in the end as well – love it.
Have a happy easter all.
I did thanks… my son found a lot of chocolate eggs under trees and in garden beds.
After all, that is the true spirit of Easter right?
Thats my last post for a while.
That’s a shame, especial when you leave with an insult.
Thanks for the banter - esp Billy and Lee.
Always a pleasure.
Lee
Billy,
my point really us quite simple : In medio stat virtus - virtue lies in the middle. Bruce's quote on Pascal typifies what I am talking about: balance.
No Im not advocating relativism or moral absolutism either. Both have valid points and either if followed to an extreme will lead you down some strange paths.
I have a body which is unique but is clearly human. An individual inside the christian tradition is no more bound to believe it all than a mcdonalds worker has to wear his uniform and cap at home.
Potential is all I am arguing to maintain and balance within polarities is about all I would advocate. Its a simple method and it works across all boundaries - intellectual , moral , social. Dont cramp yourself up, move freely.
If you apply this approach to epistemology you are left with viable and different approaches to knowledge. All I ask if that reason is balanced against imagination, empiricism against idealism and the rational respects the irrational - my mention of pentheus is because this idea is often a little misunderstood when i mention it.
My tip and it is only my personal opinion - Look for the whole picture and dont get hijacked by the edges where the ideas join together - muscles are stronger in the middle of their range. Put your ideas together like a body - makes something whole and test it by its function.
So now you know my method you can apply it to anything. We can save time. Take homosexuality in the old testament. Ill put it that the jews in principle were doing the same thing that atheists are doing now - constricting
History in my mind is nothing more than the restriction of potential - the exclusion of ideas, ethnicity , sexuality. History is essentially shrinks the potential of human life to something which can be distinguished from another period. Why do people do this - this is my recurring question : the psychology of unbelief ?
But the jews seem to have condemned and anathematised homosexuality. A lot of traditional cultures did - In times of conflict and warfare more babies meant more soldiers etc - I dont know the reason - but they did it anyway. They chopped off a small proportion of the population - just like atheism devotion to empiricism chops off other traditional approaches to knowledge - logic, idealism, holism, revelation whatever you want to call them.
Thats why I have little time for atheism or stoning homsexuals - as ideas and practices they are shrunk down.
I'm not being objectionable. I honestly think this argument has run as far as it can - for me. If I dont give you "a point" - that because I prefer lines and curves. Joining things up. Thats my method. Its the result of my own reflection and you can take or leave it as you wish. I have time for atheism but never as an absolute and final position.
Its all a spectrum - I like a nice mix of colours but if you want to live in what appears to me to be a redworld : that is your choice. If you think my world is "airy fairy" - I can live with that.
Have a "nice break" - is that a neutral enough description :)
Best wishes
Rob.
Lee
Have you ever seen an eagle swoop and kill a rabbit - its quite gruesome - the eagle goes from hungry to full and the rabbit from alive to dead - its a big transition and its bloody and messy. Supposedly it disproves a beneficient god but I dont have a problem with such things - the shift - the collison between two species like two thought forms can be messy and bloody - their are cracks in any whole system of thought like their are cracks in the plates of the earth. Justice is strife says heraclitus. When things make a lot of sense - is it because you have forgotten something ?
Where am I going ? Between Tradition and personal understanding - between scientifc method and intuitive understanding their is a dramatic tension. But this doesnt mean that either are invalid. Say we agree on cherry picking as a potential methodology in religion. You are assuming their is some test - the taste of cherries. We recoginise that something is good because it tastes like something good we've had before. I would say from the gospels that this is much more like the teaching of jesus where truth is discovered as an evolving community of friends than looking for an absolute and frozen revelation. I saw that catholic cardinal on the tv this morning saying about the human animal embryo experiments: "Im not telling anyone what to do Im only asking that catholics reflect on the churches teaching and form their own conscience on this matter". Sadly such things are not heard very often in the media - Its not crazy enough to make the news.
But getting back to the cherry analogy. As a way of thinking and living , the christian tradition try to help us understand what cherries will taste like and what are definately not cherries - so we dont poison our self at first bite - but as we start eating we need less and less support because the cherries take over. Cherries can be anything -thoughts feelings actions whatever...
Jesus in the new testament doesnt present himself as a greco-roman hero - rather he pours himself sacrificially into the historical time period of the new testament. You say he didnt bring anything new - I argue he did inside the jewish world of the first centuary his approach was revolutionary. The dying servant was actually quite far out for a first centuary jew.
Maybe that is an absolute revelation of god - poured out and into the history of one partuclar period of time - What you seem to be looking for is some sort of newtonian super hero to strike you with an absolute truth.
Ive never claimed a proof for the christian world view - merely that it can be rationally appropriated. The chistian faith can fit inside a scientifc world view but I cant see how you can prove a transcendental god by empirical means - maybe you discount his existance and explain it away , but any approach to knowledge can get rid of everything except itself - very easily and convincingly - look at zeno proving to himself the external world was a logical impossibility or berkelys fanatical idealism. There is a famous chinese curse: may you die in your own lies...
Do I think the bible is the word of god or not ? I cant answer that because Im not looking for the word of god you are. I dont need it and to be honest I wouldnt want it - look what harm people have done with the bible - why give them innerancy when they cant handle a consistant tradition.
Which is all I claim the new testament is - a coherent and consistent transmission from the original christian community. So I have no problems talking about jesus in the bible because I dont see his presentation as unhistorical. If you note I usually make generalisations from a number of sources in the gospels.
I think innerancy of the bible is quite a modern concept - it is quite recent maybe even as recent as the 19th c. Its not something I feel I need - god expressing himself perfectly for all time is not a truth to me - its just the intellectual equivalent of crack cocaine - doesnt appeal to me. I dont think this is a unique christian view - the cs lewis on scripture book I mentioned to bruce is the best introduction the whole question of biblical authority. I take the books as they were written and try to get something to apply to my daily life.
I dont find a problem being a christian and not say a taoist or a buddhist. The pluarity of religions is not actually once you get down to it so diverse. I go for the middle of the road one - which has a rather good record of nicking the best stuff from others - like easter. If I knew there was a demon in the room next door I would want to know what work I could get out of him. Im not up for chopping - Im into integrating - even empiricism and atheism. Ive very interested in the christian traditions which advocate not thinking about god in order to get close to him !
I was interested to find out dawkins distinguished between einsteins god and a deus ex machina. The idea of what god is changes in the christian tradition. From the shaper of the genesis texts to the creator ex nihilo of scholastic catholicism it isnt fixed. Ask one person what god is and they might say whats left when youve thought about everything you can - maybe someone would say unspeakable wholeness. The idea is not fixed : Jesus himself clearly shifted his disciples onto a more horizontal plane. So when your debating over the existance of what You might call aristotles prime mover I would suggest the majority of christians I know wouldnt have a clue what a "prime mover" was - it sounds like some sort of weird calculator - and the calculator remark was a flourish not an intended insult !
The word god is a very big blanket term - I like to keep the idea in currency - I think its useful - to me and amongst my family. But I think what dawkins is arguing over is something of a ghost in the machine - god to me is something which inspires unknowing and humility. And I dont think this is a modern conception. I would suggest this is actually closer to the god of jesus than the dogmatic fear inducing ghost which hovers at the outskirts of christian theology. Ive never met any mature christian who is scared of a blood thirsty god but I hear a lot about that whole thing in the media.
Regarding jesus and the law - he said he had come to fulfil the law - he warns against sexual immorality - but he doesnt spell that all out in fine details - maybe he didnt count on his followers being as stupid as they were to be ! but he does give clear guidelines that being a christian is no reciepe for success. What do you really think jesus meant by being born again ?
Ive lost my train of thought - so Ill stop - but I get a feeling Ive addressed two of you questions - innerancy and why I still use the gospels as a point in argument .
Best wishes
And yeah I did the easter egg thing as well - my son cried because for the second year running his sister found the golden egg.
So we went into his bedroom and prayed that god would give him the egg next year - I told him his sins had made the golden egg disappear and if he didnt obey me more next year he wouldnt just miss out on the egg he would find a trap door to hell in the garden.
I am joking - what did my wife say - "its just bad luck" - empiricism it seems gets to us all.
Best Wishes
Rob.
P.S. Off pat - gestalt is a german school of pyschology which talks about how we perceptually percieve images - like faces - and more losely how we make meaning out of whole systems. Rather like wholism. Check it out on wikipedia - If like me you are comfortable with inexact truth !
Lee,
I've just re read you last post.
To be very concise. Why do I believe in just and creative god - because I want to. Do I think it is unreasonable - given the human bias to do so and the rewarding life which i feel such a belief supports, no I dont think its unreasonable. Evidence ? The Jesus tradition , its harmony with natural law ( the dao , logos whatever you want to call it ) , and the human bias to religious experience. Ive written about these before the blog - im not completely sidestepping you - Im just not backtracking.
But if their is something in here you want to pick - take it to task.
Rob.
I'm looking forward to catching up on these comments; I won't really feel I shd say much more before I do.
For now, no I hadn't seen the Lewis poem Rob - thanks for it. Hope the loft flooring is going ok.
Hi Rob,
Thanks for getting back – you write even more than I do, and I thought I was bad - but at least I have a better understanding where you are coming from.
Though you might not like my summary – but I’m going to test it out anyway.
Your God is unique, unique to you.
It is based on your upbringing in a Christian culture and as such you have chosen all the best bits that you like from Christianity (I hope you have chosen wisely)
Since you seemed to have rejected the extremes of religion, and have personally chosen your beliefs (without help from a church group) you seem to have selected a moderate position and are against the extreme.
So this is about as good as it can get in my book while still being a theist.
The reason why you seem to have chosen your position is that it makes you happy – it gives you a reason to live and seemingly explains the observation around you. (As you said - it is because you want to believe)
So great – Jesus can be your invisible buddy :) Buddy Christ!
You think the belief in belief in God brings out the best in you and your family.
(Have you read Dan Dennett’s Breaking the spell BTW?)
So what is there to talk about?
You don’t care for evidence, or what is real or true in the universe or how to test your conclusions… you are happy with your conclusions made – and you will change your belief as and when you feel the need – cherry picking whatever you like.
The fact you are unaware of any evidence for your theistic God doesn’t trouble you in the least – why would it?
This isn’t important in your worldview – what is true or real are not important – what matters is what makes you happy.
The warm fussy glow you feel inside in thinking God has a purpose and is nice (maybe the insurance in an afterlife is also good for you, who knows).
You are even happy that the bible is nonsense when read as a whole it would seem. There are bits you like in it, and that’s good enough for you – you’ll take only them.(I just wonder how you selected them?)
I wonder what version of the bible you have, maybe it was the one I found in a bookstore last week - I was tempted to buy (but my wife told me not to waste $25… Grr).
It was a children’s bible with pretty smiley faces of all the main characters – I thought it was hilarious – all the nasty bits removed, and everything re-worded for the children to be nice and friendly - even the book of Revelations sounded like a nice thing.
But that’s the problem – it is a dream – it isn’t real. You want it to be, but cannot show it to be anything more that wishful thinking.
How is that for a summary? Am I close? (Too close perhaps?)
Now if you do not mind, I’ll just highlight some points since you wrote a lot of good stuff for a debate.
But the jews seem to have condemned and anathematised homosexuality. A lot of traditional cultures did
According to the Jews they were following the word of God – God’s law.
Either God was wrong and changed his mind later (since no one stones gays now), or the bible is not the word of God.
I am not condemning the Jews, it was over 2,000 years ago – morals have changed since then. Back then Greeks were playing with little boys and American’s sacrificing children to silly gods (Not of course Quetzalcoatl)… man’s history is not pretty - the bible shows that much.
However, the bible also shows the absence of a loving god – that is a problem for a Christian to explain for me – not for you of course, you chose whatever you like. For whatever reason.
Man’s morals improve no thanks to any divine guidance, but you still want to thank God? Why? Why not just thank Goodness?
Its the result of my own reflection and you can take or leave it as you wish.
Well, you have given me no reason to take it, but I will discuss it all the same.
I have time for atheism but never as an absolute and final position.
Is there another position? Atheism merely means that we don't believe in gods because there is no reason to do so. Can you show me why I am wrong?
I am not absolute, there could be a god out there playing chess with men – it just that there is no evidence, and therefore reason, to believe in gods.
Have you ever seen an eagle swoop and kill a rabbit - its quite gruesome
On TV yes… I’ve also seen a video on the internet of two people being stoned to death because of the religious belief of the group.
Life is shit sometimes… this to me causes a problem with the idea of an all-loving God… not for you though it seems.
The cherries must be nice this time of year?
Say we agree on cherry picking as a potential methodology in religion.
If religion did this, it invalidates it claim for absolute truth in god.
…and religion does do this.
Oh dear.
I saw that catholic cardinal on the tv this morning saying about the human animal embryo experiments:
Lets not get started on this topic, Jonathan has already mentioned this on his blog - we can debate there if you wish to discuss further.
It is just another problem I have with organised religion.
Maybe that is an absolute revelation of god - poured out and into the history of one partuclar period of time
So your God is also a stupid god?
Why give absolute revelation to a tribe of murdering superstitious bastards 2,000 years ago who were not able to record precisely what was said or observed, this meant that 2,000 years on it is still debated and people are murdered due to the interpretations of religion?
No, maybe it is time for God to pay us a visit - it would make me believe in Him.
Also, do you believe in the evolution of man? (You should do)
It means if the story of the bible is correct, God waited nearly 98,000 years to come down and tell us how it is to be... what was he thinking about for those 98,000 years - should I or shouldn't I? I say mankind would have been better if he didn't for all the good it has done.
What you seem to be looking for is some sort of newtonian super hero to strike you with an absolute truth.
I doubt I will be given absolute truth, but a God could provide a lot more evidence for His existence if he wanted to.
Why does God hide from us? Is that an all-loving action?
Ive never claimed a proof for the christian world view - merely that it can be rationally appropriated.
You have not shown any requirement for God in coming to your conclusions – God is not required, this is a problem with your claims.
The chistian faith can fit inside a scientifc world view but I cant see how you can prove a transcendental god by empirical means
If God provided the evidence for His existence, the scientific empirical method will find it.
None is seen, it is not because we didn't look.
You don't blame the test if you fail.
maybe you discount his existance and explain it away
If I can explain it away, the evidence is no better that the pictures of the Loch Ness monster or alien landings.
Your super God could (and should) do better than that.
Do I think the bible is the word of god or not ? I cant answer that because Im not looking for the word of god you are.
Then I will answer it for you – you do not believe the bible is the word of God, otherwise you would have said so.
The idea of what god is changes in the christian tradition.
BINGO!!!
That should be a hint to you that God is man-made.
Come on, wake up and smell the coffee.
… and the calculator remark was a flourish not an intended insult !
Fair enough – my mistake, no harm done.
And yeah I did the easter egg thing as well - my son cried because for the second year running his sister found the golden egg.
Note to self:
Do not purchase one golden egg since it creates disappointment.
On the prayer question – do you encourage your children to pray? Why, for what reason?
I've just re read you last post.
I hope it was a good post and worth the extra effort… I have a habit of writing rubbish.
Why do I believe in just and creative god - because I want to.
Yep… I know. More on this shortly.
Do I think it is unreasonable - given the human bias to do so and the rewarding life which i feel such a belief supports, no I dont think its unreasonable.
As I said in my tomato sauce analogy – some people want to add a little sauce, some don't need any.
So no problem, so long as the person knows when to stop adding more rubbish to a nice meal :)
Evidence ? The Jesus tradition , its harmony with natural law ( the dao , logos whatever you want to call it ) , and the human bias to religious experience.
That’s not good evidence. There are more people who do not believe in Jesus than do. Those that do cannot agree on major points.
The human bias to believe nonsense is also not good evidence – do you believe in alien landings and Bigfoot – many do, so this should be a warning that the human mind will believe many things that are not true. So what is your point again?
But if their is something in here you want to pick - take it to task.
You made an important point with regards to your belief and that it is based on the fact you want to believe.
Doesn’t this ring alarm bells for you – that what you want to believe might not be true?
Just because you wish it so, doesn’t make it so.
How do you test your belief to ensure it is not just wishful thinking?
Cheers
Now back to the cricket...
Lee
Lee,
An interesting pen portrait of a Theist - I like the buddy christ quip - jesus as "harvey the rabbit". Why have a pooka when you can have jesus ! You could get that on t-shirts.
Some people think of jesus like that - but if it works for them who am I to knock them. My reason for exposing my moderate theism is to try and give you a flavour for how it works as a dynamic body of mutually opposing and supporting tension. The church claims to be the body of christ and it lives as a community in the same way a body moves in time.
You are looking for absolutes in a world where they only exist in the mind of the dreamer - they have no place in the natural world. Find me something that is something. The only constant thing is change - the only real thing is the whole that is changing.
I wont swap the evolving drama of christian theism for what I consider to be an idol - you talk about aliens. Big heads and eyes and skinny bodies - the greys are a personification of reductionism and atheism.
You seem to group christian revelation with bigfoot etc. I have to be honest Ive studied new testament criticsm for a long time now and despite the media noise I dont find any problems with the historicy of the new testament. The modern critical theories began a priori - the new testament could have happened like that - lets show that it didnt.
I continually talk of coherence and consistency. I embrace the scientific method but I have no grounds to reject the simple story of jesus.
I think most people reject it because they feel threatened but thats just bad theism which doesnt respect the individual.
Do I believe the bible is the word of god - how can I respond without using your categories ?
I never reject any of it - but I use what I digest when I read it. Think of the bible as a meal. Its fine dining but not if you have stomach ache.
Im not being insulting but have you read much on epistemology. Reductionism is an idol. If I have an accustaion it would be like socrates to diogenes : i can see your pride through the holes in your cloak.
All lies in jest till a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest - but that goes to you as well as me.
I think you dismiss complicated issues rather than learning to work with them. True more people dont believe in jesus than do - but then more people believe in jesus than anything else.
You right that I grew up in a christian family but to me than is possibly more integral to the christian faith than a transcendental god.
You see if I teach my children to pray its is a much to discover and create an internal dialogue than it it is to address a big god in the sky.
Breaking the spell sounds like an interesting title but I dont beleieve I am under a spell. In the language of magic a spell restricts. I am free of spells - I can use everything that I come across. Whatevers going Im up for absorbing it all. Even your atheism and scientific method. Im not saying you should use sauce on everything but there no need to ban it from the house.
For all these words my point is simple. "Dont throw the baby out with the bathwater". How much longer can I go on saying this ?
One priest I know says he believes in prayer, a cultured sense of wholeness and the self sacrificing moral path of jesus. The rest of it hes open to discussion over. Christianity is his hole and thats where hes used to fighting from. I dont see him as a failed christian - I see him as a focused member of my local christian community.
Yes I am trying to fudge the edges of this debate - because I'm interested in common ground.
Life is shitty - but hope and despair are echoes of each other. I like the practicality of atheism. I must confess a love for stoic philosophy but you mention nature. But where i see the oppertunity for a refreshing view you are happy to build a house.
If you dont see a god tell me about how you feel about nature ? Is it really cruel or do we just have a set of culturally self orientated expectations.
Do you remember the gospels debate of pilate and jesus. There is a lot of categorys in debate which both side uses with different meaning. I do think the bible is the word of god - but what I mean by that is something completely different than you. I think Jesus christ was the son of god - but my understanding of that is unlikely to be what you think. I do believe in the risen christ - but I am sure the way you picture that is a million miles form my perception. The deeper we go into theism the harder it is for an outsider to understand.
What Im trying to say is what you are attacking might not be what you think it is. I am not a "christian theist" - I live inside the evolving slipstream of christian theism. That is something completely differnt.
Im going back to that loft.
Best wishes
Rob.
Lee,
On the man made god thing. Why does it have to be one or the other. Why can't it be both and neither. I once asked a friend did we create god or did he create us -he said he would like to think it was a bit of both. Mutually supporting contradictions.
"Nature is a language cant you read"
Good grief Im quoting morrisey. I really should get back in that loft.
R...
Hi Rob
my point really us quite simple : In medio stat virtus - virtue lies in the middle. Bruce's quote on Pascal typifies what I am talking about: balance.
Don’t recall Bruce saying that – ifact, he just seemed to be pondering – anyway…
No Im not advocating relativism or moral absolutism either. Both have valid points and either if followed to an extreme will lead you down some strange paths.
Are we using the same definition of absolute here – that your god essentially is moral law?
I have a body which is unique but is clearly human. An individual inside the christian tradition is no more bound to believe it all than a mcdonalds worker has to wear his uniform and cap at home.
This is a non sequitir – a McD worker is not bound to his employer when he goes home.
What do you not need to believe all of? The bible?
Potential is all I am arguing to maintain and balance within polarities is about all I would advocate. Its a simple method and it works across all boundaries - intellectual , moral , social. Dont cramp yourself up, move freely.
Sounds like you are making it up as you go along. Where are the roots of reality? Sounds like spiritual relativism to me. Just how important to you is it when Jesus says he is the only way to god for example (jn 14:6)?
If you apply this approach to epistemology you are left with viable and different approaches to knowledge.
No you are not – you are left with your own created version of relativism.
All I ask if that reason is balanced against imagination, empiricism against idealism and the rational respects the irrational - my mention of pentheus is because this idea is often a little misunderstood when i mention it.
How does that make it real?
My tip and it is only my personal opinion - Look for the whole picture and dont get hijacked by the edges where the ideas join together - muscles are stronger in the middle of their range. Put your ideas together like a body - makes something whole and test it by its function.
And what is the whole picture? Sounds like a highly subjective and personal view. How is that truth? You haven’t studied much physiology I am guessing : -)
So now you know my method you can apply it to anything.
That neutrons are made of what ever I want them to be? That hard is soft? That god doesn’t exist?
We can save time. Take homosexuality in the old testament. Ill put it that the jews in principle were doing the same thing that atheists are doing now – constricting
Rob, please consider this carefully. How is DOING WHAT GOD DEMANDS being constricting? They were not misinterpreting the command! If anything was being constricting, it was “god”. It is not as if they had a choice not to follow god’s demands – read Deut 28 to see what happens if you don’t.
History in my mind is nothing more than the restriction of potential - the exclusion of ideas, ethnicity , sexuality. History is essentially shrinks the potential of human life to something which can be distinguished from another period. Why do people do this - this is my recurring question : the psychology of unbelief ?
No, history is what happened in the past. Why do people do what? Follow divine demands that stifle life?
But the jews seem to have condemned and anathematised homosexuality.
If you believe god exists, do go about blaming the jews for the cruelty of his demands.
A lot of traditional cultures did - In times of conflict and warfare more babies meant more soldiers etc - I dont know the reason - but they did it anyway. They chopped off a small proportion of the population - just like atheism devotion to empiricism chops off other traditional approaches to knowledge - logic, idealism, holism, revelation whatever you want to call them.
Is this a justification of killing homosexuals? You seem to forget that your god demanded it (actually, he demanded the genocide of Canaan too). Homosexuals can also have a role in bringing up the children of siblings.
Thats why I have little time for atheism or stoning homsexuals - as ideas and practices they are shrunk down.
Wake up call – it was theism it demanded their deaths.
I'm not being objectionable. I honestly think this argument has run as far as it can - for me. If I dont give you "a point" - that because I prefer lines and curves. Joining things up. Thats my method.
So you say, but I still don’t see what makes it real.
Its the result of my own reflection and you can take or leave it as you wish. I have time for atheism but never as an absolute and final position.
Second wake up call – we don’t do absolutes – theists do – god is absolute truth, god is absolute morality, god is absolutely essential……
Its all a spectrum - I like a nice mix of colours but if you want to live in what appears to me to be a redworld : that is your choice. If you think my world is "airy fairy" - I can live with that.
Well as long as it keeps you happy eh?
Have a "nice break" - is that a neutral enough description :)
Best wishes
You too
PS, What lee said in his last response
Does
parroting old testament verses about - the practice - of homosexual acts, have any real bearing or relevance to the new testament age of grace we are all sharing in our lives lived after the cross of Christ.
Think about it, Christ suffered in his body all the weight of the law of Moses including the laws against homosexual practice, our sin made even more sinful by the law was the judgement of Christ.
So to keep saying the old testament says this and the old testament says that is no more than a display of ignorance regarding the purpose and meaning of the judgement of Christ that Christ bore in his own body on the cross all the judgements of sin and law.
The thinking in the comments is wilfully flawed just for the sake of argument. It is a kind of double ignorance, to know what you're saying is wrong and to say it anyway because in your heart you reject the Lordship of Christ.
Billy,
Stoning homosexuals was the jews understanding of god in the old testament - thats what they thought god wanted. In the new testament paul speaks about having only a partial understanding of god.
Your method for rejecting christian theism is to turn it into something which nobody I know would be interested in. Empricisim is a developing theory - the very idea of scientific method develops and well the the theories which is espouses. Why should theology be any different ? The models for its development might be rather too poetic or airy fairy for you but thats your choice. You seem to have opinions on what is right or wrong with the way we view the bible - I sure the C.Of E could find you a seat on its synod - angry atheists - you could add another voice to the debate.
If scottish presbyterianism sometimes preffered to languish in the old testament what fault is that of mine ? Yes I have my own understanding of christian theism but it would clearly be recognisable as christian to majority of christians I know. I think what you are arguing against is some sort of protestant reaction to the enligtentment - I vaguely trying to pin a tail on this weird donkey you have in your head.
Do I believe that faith in jesus is a neccesary step in salvation. Of course I do I am a christian. I just dont think that faith is the grabbing of a group of contestable intellectual paradigms. Christian faith is belief in a person. What was jesus like ? Is that a way you want to live. Discipleship is a discipline - not a intellectual badge.
Christianity is a development of judaism - if people misuse the old testament thats because they have failed to understand the fullness and freedom of the new testament.
I wouldnt want to believe the type of christianity you represent. This to me is one point of debate : the strawmen on both sides begin to disapear.
You want absolutes ? the new testament might encourage absolute obedience to god but discovering what god wants of us is an act of conscience. Jesus' sacrifice on the cross is not something any of his disciples pressed him into, his agony in gethsemane is about as much understanding gods will as enacting it. Humility is a core virtue of the gospels.
Humility of body, heart, mind and intellect. Jesus "emptied himself" is the phrase st paul used. If you remember Jesus' responses to the questions which were set: thy were often suprising and confusing. So there is always a choice inside christianity . Do you freeze time and do everything jesus did or do you see him as setting a principle ?
Of course people will abstract that principle in different ways. Each christian is unique. I would say the picture of jesus in the new testament speaks to me of wholeness, humility and obedience.
If Im not a christian - discount me from the argument. Perhaps you could find a stupid one on the god channel. It might make it easier for your arguments to stick ?
Best wishes
Rob.
P.S. Read you comments on Cardinal somebody on Jonathons blog - is that the sort of language bruce moderates :)
In support of my so called "individual" holist approach to knowledge. I offer the following news report:
Father Nicolas said he hoped the Jesuits would follow the principles of Mohandas Gandhi, "who said that when you speak of something you must first ask, 'Is it true?' because if it is not true, then it is not interesting. Second, 'Is it gentle, charitable, kind?' and third, 'Is it good for others?'"
He's the head of the jesuit order - that would be the largest relgious order in the world. So Im not exactly out on a wire.
Hi Rob,
Thanks for the detailed responses, I will try and get back to you soon.
I'm busy at work now, starting on a new project - but I will get back in time - I'll just have to be brief.
+++++
Billy wrote:
PS, What lee said in his last response
Cheers - I hope it was a good comment then, I cannot remember now
See ya
Lee
Billy,
you wrote
"
Potential is all I am arguing to maintain and balance within polarities is about all I would advocate. Its a simple method and it works across all boundaries - intellectual , moral , social. Dont cramp yourself up, move freely.
Sounds like you are making it up as you go along. Where are the roots of reality?
"
How am I making this up - I am merely rexpressing what a method the church would call "natural law". Roughly the same philosophy we find in the dao de jing - where it is called tao - and heraclitus where it is called -logos. Its most modern counterpart would be called holism - and there is a corresponding theory of body movement in myo-fascial massage (see ida rolf) and internal chinese martial arts and at least the diagnostic systems of many traditional medical systems
If their are roots to the world : surely it is our observation of the natural world - the cardinal virtues underpin the theological virtues - lies our understanding of nature underpins our knowledge of god - in a pre scientfic term this understanding to me is the logos of early greek philosophy.
Johns gospel opens by claiming that god is jesus and jesus is the logos - that they are substantively the same. If you are saying God is the logos - that somehow god is the balancing force implicit in nature - I would agree to something like that. To say "God is Moral Law" my first response is confusion. To say God is Old Testament Law I assume you dont mean this.
Must dash - lunchtime over
Billy,
Heres a link for you with no real angle - discusses ways in which homosexuality might have been viewed differently in the past. I thought it was quite interesting:
http://acc6.its.brooklyn.cuny.edu/~phalsall/texts/gaytexts.html
rob
Annonymous (I wonder who?)
parroting old testament verses about - the practice - of homosexual acts, have any real bearing or relevance to the new testament age of grace we are all sharing in our lives lived after the cross of Christ.
If you want to claim OT and NT gods are the same, it does. Jesus also stated that the law will always be the law, and elsewhere in the OT, the law is described as perfect. Therefore, these are the thoughts and moral judgements of your god - to me, they are repulsive! How do you excuse teh evil side of him in the OT?
Think about it, Christ suffered in his body all the weight of the law of Moses including the laws against homosexual practice, our sin made even more sinful by the law was the judgement of Christ.
Yet paul says homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of heaven. I find your theology to be very selective here - I also dont happen to believe that Jesus actually existed, but let's assume for the sake of argument that he did, the crucifiction does not change the fact that the OT laws were deemed perfect .
So to keep saying the old testament says this and the old testament says that is no more than a display of ignorance regarding the purpose and meaning of the judgement of Christ that Christ bore in his own body on the cross all the judgements of sin and law.
Well, you are ignoring what jesus and the OT says about the law. This idea of propitiation is not supported by OT verses and expectations of messianic roles. You are the one that seems ignorant of the OT prophecies concerning the messiah and the fact that making yourself right with god has always been about deeds. The jesus story is not consistent with this - that is why jews reject the idea he was the messiah. You may also want to look at some of the prophecies he supposedly fulfilled - take isaiah 7:14 in its original context - it is not about jesus at all! Micah 5:2 is also another good one for starters. More likely , the Jesus story was fabricated.
The thinking in the comments is wilfully flawed just for the sake of argument. It is a kind of double ignorance, to know what you're saying is wrong and to say it anyway because in your heart you reject the Lordship of Christ.
Hello Jimmy, do you concede that muslims revere a paedophile yet?
And you are wiffully ignoring the baby killing nature of god. The contradiction is plain. You need to learn to argue and not throw insults about that reflect your ignorance and prejudices.
Hi Rob,
Stoning homosexuals was the jews understanding of god in the old testament - thats what they thought god wanted. In the new testament paul speaks about having only a partial understanding of god.
Yet, the law is perfect (Psalm 119 8God's laws are perfect. They protect us, make us wise, and give us joy and light, Psalm 119:96Nothing is perfect except your words., psalm 119:142 Your justice is eternal for your laws are perfectly fair. )
Do you deny these verses? It apparently is fair to kill homosexuals. And lets not pretend it was an imperfect understanding, the law as told by god is perfectly clear : "If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13)
Your method for rejecting christian theism is to turn it into something which nobody I know would be interested in.
And that would invalidate it how? As I said before, the moral argument is far from the only reason I reject christianity.
Empricisim is a developing theory - the very idea of scientific method develops and well the the theories which is espouses. Why should theology be any different ?
Well, an evolving theology would not be good to tell you about salvation - you clearly disagree with the vast majority of christians I come across who believe the bible is the complete revelation of Jesus. Do you actually have any evidence that it should evolve - and if so, how do you know what to believe - seems that allows you to believe what you want.
Evolving theology does not change the nasty things that god did in the OT. He is supposed to be unchanging - or is that another tennent of christianity you disagree with too?
The models for its development might be rather too poetic or airy fairy for you but thats your choice. You seem to have opinions on what is right or wrong with the way we view the bible - I sure the C.Of E could find you a seat on its synod - angry atheists - you could add another voice to the debate.
Who's angry - is that something your theology needs to believe? The models are not too poetic - they just lack no foundation - unless you can show me otherwise
If scottish presbyterianism sometimes preffered to languish in the old testament what fault is that of mine ?
I think you are off on a tangent here. At least the presbies seem to take the bible seriously - Why do you think you seem to disagree with so many different yahweists - so far in this post alone, you have had a pop at the jew, the CofE and the presbies - what makes you think you are right?
Yes I have my own understanding of christian theism but it would clearly be recognisable as christian to majority of christians I know.
Ah the argument from majority fallacy. I was reminded today that Ted Haggard was chairman of a 30 million strong church - most of who would disagree with you. In the absence of god speaking, what makes your theology better than theirs? from what I can see, they at least use the bible.
I think what you are arguing against is some sort of protestant reaction to the enligtentment - I vaguely trying to pin a tail on this weird donkey you have in your head.
Nope
Do I believe that faith in jesus is a neccesary step in salvation. Of course I do I am a christian. I just dont think that faith is the grabbing of a group of contestable intellectual paradigms.
So you dont love the lord with all your heart and mind then? (matt22:37)
Christian faith is belief in a person. What was jesus like ? Is that a way you want to live. Discipleship is a discipline - not a intellectual badge.
So, there is no good reason to believe it. Is that what you are saying?
Christianity is a development of judaism - if people misuse the old testament thats because they have failed to understand the fullness and freedom of the new testament.
No it isn't - it is totally incompatible with judaism which it supposedly has its roots in
I wouldnt want to believe the type of christianity you represent. This to me is one point of debate : the strawmen on both sides begin to disapear.
What does what you want have to do with any possible truth?
You want absolutes ? the new testament might encourage absolute obedience to god but discovering what god wants of us is an act of conscience.
Really, I thought it was a matter of revelation. How is an act of concience absolute? I think killing homosexuals is wrong, others disagree with me - what is absolute about that?
Jesus' sacrifice on the cross is not something any of his disciples pressed him into, his agony in gethsemane is about as much understanding gods will as enacting it. Humility is a core virtue of the gospels.
Actually, the gospel of peter denies his suffering, so why not take that as a witness testament?
Humility of body, heart, mind and intellect. Jesus "emptied himself" is the phrase st paul used. If you remember Jesus' responses to the questions which were set: thy were often suprising and confusing. So there is always a choice inside christianity . Do you freeze time and do everything jesus did or do you see him as setting a principle ?
Erm, what choice? Love me or burn? how does this relate to gods hatred of homosexuals?
Of course people will abstract that principle in different ways. Each christian is unique. I would say the picture of jesus in the new testament speaks to me of wholeness, humility and obedience.
Relevance?
If Im not a christian - discount me from the argument. Perhaps you could find a stupid one on the god channel. It might make it easier for your arguments to stick ?
Oh, my arguments stick, you appear ignore what you dont like. Now you have had a pop at the god channelers - at least we agree on something - THEY ARE STUPID!
P.S. Read you comments on Cardinal somebody on Jonathons blog - is that the sort of language bruce moderates :)
If I used the word that preceeded off, then he might have a problem.
Regarding the logos - i mean that you appear to be the sole arbitrator of what constitutes natural law - youu view then becomes somewhat circular.
BTW, "John" probably adopted the logos to convert the hellenics to christianity
Have I missed another nightly update again...
+++++++
Anonymous wrote:
Does
parroting old testament verses about - the practice - of homosexual acts, have any real bearing or relevance to the new testament age of grace we are all sharing in our lives lived after the cross of Christ.
By “parroting” do you mean reading the words that are actually written in the OT?
I’m happy to say the OT was wrong on these laws, and the NT with Jesus was better in many ways (ignoring the hell business and leaving your family to follow a dream that doesn’t happen)
If you want to tell me you reject the OT and its teachings, then I will not mention it again, but I will question why someone accepts the NT without the OT and why the nature of God has changed. Why God at one point thought these laws were a good idea, but later changes His mind.
Think about it, Christ suffered in his body all the weight of the law of Moses including the laws against homosexual practice, our sin made even more sinful by the law was the judgement of Christ.
This is where it gets confusing for me - Was Christ God or just a normal man?
If Christ was God, then how was dieing on the cross helpful? Couldn’t God just admit He was wrong?
You also speak of “our sin” - what “sin” of mine did Jesus die for? Why did God wait over 4.5 billion years to come down and tell us how it should be with His laws (and get it wrong, so a few hundred years later needs to nail himself to a cross?) Why no news from God these last 2,000 years?
(Of course, when I talk about “die” on the cross I mean according to the bible, a little sleep for a couple of days – not real death – that would be silly now wouldn’t it having God dieing just like that – lets think of it as just a weekend break for Jesus instead - to recharge the batteries. I also wonder what Jesus was doing for these few days “dead” does it say in the bible?)
So to keep saying the old testament says this and the old testament says that is no more than a display of ignorance regarding the purpose and meaning of the judgement of Christ that Christ bore in his own body on the cross all the judgements of sin and law.
Just tell me you reject the OT as nonsense, then we will hear no more of it.
Are the laws of Moses the laws given by God or not? Tell me they are just laws written by man, then no problem.
The thinking in the comments is wilfully flawed just for the sake of argument. It is a kind of double ignorance, to know what you're saying is wrong and to say it anyway because in your heart you reject the Lordship of Christ.
Can you show me this “Lordship of Christ” that I reject please – what is it? How do you know it exists? How would you convince a Muslim that you are telling the truth?
Cheers
Lee
PS
Are you Jimmy?
Hi Rob,
An interesting pen portrait of a Theist
Was I close?
I like the buddy christ quip
It was taken from the film “Dogma” – a rather funny film, it is all about God, angels and heaven and little to do with the “traditional interpretation” of the bible – so you might like it.
My reason for exposing my moderate theism is to try and give you a flavour for how it works as a dynamic body of mutually opposing and supporting tension.
I’m grateful you are providing more of your views on religion and faith – it means I don’t use as much straw in my arguments
The church claims to be the body of christ and it lives as a community in the same way a body moves in time.
Claim maybe, but can they explain it, shown it, argue it or prove it?
You are looking for absolutes in a world where they only exist in the mind of the dreamer - they have no place in the natural world.
I am not looking for absolutes, I don’t believe they exist, not only do they have no place in the natural world, they are not observed in the natural world – at the Quantum level it is all about probability and uncertainty – no absolutes.
So we may agree on something?
I wont swap the evolving drama of christian theism for what I consider to be an idol
If your Christian theism is evolving – what is true about it? Was it more true at the beginning, now or in the future?
You certainly don’t have any absolutes if it is evolving do you?
Also, I thought the bible spoke of absolutes and perfect laws and all that –there seems to be a contradiction somewhere. Probably in what you believe.
you talk about aliens.
Merely to point out that the alien landing proponents have evidence coming out of their ears... it is just not very good.
You reject this evidence I assume, so you have a handle on what is considered good evidence and what should be rejected as bad evidence.
You seem to group christian revelation with bigfoot etc.
The claims of Christian revelation seem to have a similar level of quality evidence as the Bigfoot evidence.
You could of course show me wrong here – show some divine knowledge has been given in the bible. Show divine knowledge in the bible that was “risky” (i.e. not a simple guess) and has been shown to be true and not debatable :)
I have to be honest Ive studied new testament criticsm for a long time now and despite the media noise I dont find any problems with the historicy of the new testament.
You cannot see the wood for the trees then...
Why not start by trying to get from the NT a consistent method on what you need to do to get into heaven? The NT cannot agree.
How about some consistent reports on the last words of Jesus Christ on the cross? 4 different accounts was it? How is that possible?
What was the wording on the sign nailed on the cross with Jesus again? How many signs were they?
How do you explain the failed prophecy from Jesus about the end of the world will be happening within the lifetime of those present listening to his message? Seen any wandering Jews lately?
How about finding some independent evidence (out side of the bible or by religious follows) for the events described in the bible? 3 or 4 lines in a couple of texts is pretty poor you have to admit for the events described in the bible.
Why were many “gospels” rejected and not included in the bible – why accept the ones that are in the bible to be any more valid – for what reason? So many books for men to choose...
Why did the Jews, the people who understand the OT the best, reject Jesus? Always seemed a strange one that – only the people who wanted to believe did.
How about the story in the NT that states Herod killing all those 2 year olds – anyone outside the bible mention it? A problem of history or the bible?
If the virgin birth was so important, why wasn’t it mentioned during the lifetime of Jesus, it is seems to be added at a later date as an after thought merely to shoehorn a prophecy (that was misinterpreted) – do any of Jesus’ disciples mention it in context?
Also, ask yourself, are you following the teaching of Jesus or the interpretation of Paul? Why hasn’t Jesus written a book – in his own hand – so to stop any confusion...
Should I go on – I have more? I am obviously not very well read on the NT – never having read it as a believing, only as a sceptic.
The modern critical theories began a priori - the new testament could have happened like that - lets show that it didnt.
There are simpler explanations to the events described in the NT – that is all.
If the religious wish to make a claim for the more complex solution, as detailed in the NT, they have to show these events described are actually more likely then the non-believers solution AND actually happened.
Some of the events should be backed up with hard evidence from independent sources... the lack of evidence is rather telling.
I continually talk of coherence and consistency. I embrace the scientific method but I have no grounds to reject the simple story of jesus.
I have grounds (see above)... plus how many people do you know have come back from the day after several days?
If you truly embrace the scientific method, then you should be demanding evidence for many of the claims rather than your default position that seems to be accepting until proven otherwise.
I think most people reject it because they feel threatened but thats just bad theism which doesnt respect the individual.
I don’t feel threatened... I would love there to be evidence for an all-loving God who is looking after me and my world. I don’t see any (certainly not if the bible is anything to go by)
This creates a problem – but it is not because I am threatened.
Do I believe the bible is the word of god - how can I respond without using your categories ?
Explain your categories for believing the bible to be true then.
Explain how you reject the bits from the bible you don’t personally like or how you interpret the clear (and evil?) actions described in the OT such as killing gays – hardening the heart of a pharaoh so God can send down the angel of death to kill first born sons, flooding the whole world resulting in the drowning of thousands of babies – if these stories are true (and they are written in the bible as facts after all) that you have a problem – these are not nice actions and would be deemed as evil in modern eyes.
I didn’t write the stories in the bible, so don’t blame me that the stories describe evil and immoral events. If I am missing reading them, please explain how.
I never reject any of it
So you like the stories in the OT I outlined above? There are more... you don’t reject them?
Think of the bible as a meal. Its fine dining but not if you have stomach ache.
If you read and believe the bible stories – it will make you sick. Just picking the cherries is sweet.
Im not being insulting but have you read much on epistemology. Reductionism is an idol.
Not that I am aware of – I cannot even spell the words :)
I get my philosophy from TV I think...
If I have an accustaion it would be like socrates to diogenes : i can see your pride through the holes in your cloak.
I like intellectual insults – I really do.
All lies in jest till a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest - but that goes to you as well as me.
"When a man finds a conclusion agreeable, he accepts it without argument, but when he finds it disagreeable, he will bring against it all the forces of logic and reason."
Thucydides
Old quotes are great...
I think you dismiss complicated issues rather than learning to work with them.
What are the complicated issues that I am dismissing? Can you bullet-point a couple for clarification and discussion?
True more people dont believe in jesus than do - but then more people believe in jesus than anything else.
This just goes down a path of a fallacy – having the majority of fools on your side doesn’t mean you haven’t made a foolish conclusion.
You right that I grew up in a christian family but to me than is possibly more integral to the christian faith than a transcendental god.
Lucky for you then that you were born into the right religion? Everyone else is going to hell right?
You see if I teach my children to pray its is a much to discover and create an internal dialogue than it it is to address a big god in the sky.
I don’t understand the value of prayer sorry, so I will not be teaching it my son. Unless you can tell me good reasons why I should give him false hope (sorry, reason to believe in prayer)?
Breaking the spell sounds like an interesting title but I dont beleieve I am under a spell.
The book full title is "Breaking The Spell: Religion As A Natural Phenomenon"
Try it – you may like it. No answers, only questions – Dennett is a philosopher.
But how do you know you are not under a spell?
How do you test your conclusions to ensure you are not being tricked?
Im not saying you should use sauce on everything but there no need to ban it from the house.
Our food analogies are great...
As I said, I merely do not see any value in the “sauce” so I do not add it since it will cloud the true taste of the meal.
Show me why I am wrong, then I may try it.
When advantages are there in your religion that you can show me this side of the grave?
For all these words my point is simple. "Dont throw the baby out with the bathwater". How much longer can I go on saying this ?
I’ve not thrown anything out... I just have not included anything that has not been shown to have value.
You have chosen religion and faith so why have you thrown out Zeus, Woden and Allah as gods?
Yes I am trying to fudge the edges of this debate - because I'm interested in common ground.
Maybe the common ground is we are both looking for the “truth”?
I just want to know how we test our conclusions – this is where we differ.
If you dont see a god tell me about how you feel about nature ? Is it really cruel or do we just have a set of culturally self orientated expectations.
Nature just is...
I love it, I love nature, I love the universe - I love life – I love the complexity, and I love the puzzle in trying to solve it.
Is nature cruel when the lion eats the zebra, or is it just nature? Is it cruel that children die of disease everyday?
The theist has to explain how the observations of nature fits in with an all-powerful and all-loving God... I don’t have that problem. You do, but I suspect you ignore the problem or redefine your god for every problem.
I do think the bible is the word of god - but what I mean by that is something completely different than you.
Then you must explain what you mean – I think the bible was written by man for man.
I of course cannot understand what you are saying unless you explain your position.
If the bible is the true word of God, then why is it open to interpretation? Why do you think you are better than God at understanding His own meaning of the words?
Why has Christianity changed in the last 500 years, but the bible hasn’t? Weird that one to me.
I think Jesus christ was the son of god - but my understanding of that is unlikely to be what you think.
I’ve never understood this son of God, Jesus is god stuff one bit.
It does not make sense – can you explain it?
I do believe in the risen christ - but I am sure the way you picture that is a million miles form my perception.
Again – please explain then.
The deeper we go into theism the harder it is for an outsider to understand.
You are right... the more the meanings are personal and unexplainable to others. The explanation is more and more meaningless.
What Im trying to say is what you are attacking might not be what you think it is.
Is there a theistic God in the universe – yes or no?
Why should I believe there is a theistic God in the universe?
That is what I am questioning.
I am not a "christian theist" - I live inside the evolving slipstream of christian theism. That is something completely differnt.
As I said before – you just seem to make up your Christianity as you go along. It is personal and unique to you. (The inquisition would have loved to have a word with you 450 years ago...)
However at the core of your belief – you must believe in a theistic God – right?
So let’s start there.
Please give me some characteristics of your theistic God and how you know Him to exist and have these characteristics?
If you cannot do this, you are merely following an invisible friend who is evolving as you age...
On the man made god thing. Why does it have to be one or the other. Why can't it be both and neither.
How very quantum mechanical of you.
I once asked a friend did we create god or did he create us -he said he would like to think it was a bit of both. Mutually supporting contradictions.
The key phrase “would like to think” – I would like to think and believe I have a million dollars in my bank account.
However the belief ends when I look at the evidence...
Lee
Hi Rob,
Thanks for the link, but the question is not how man viewed homosexuality, but how the OT god views it. It is interesting how different cultures either condemned or esteemed it - one for the refuting CS Lewis's chair argument I think
Reductionism is an idol.
No it's not , and it works! It keeps pushing god out f the gaps. If reductionism were an idol, why has some theist not destroyed it?
Billy and Lee
Thanks for your posts. Ive had a long day at work - Ill try and reply tommorow. Ill just mention some vaguries about the bible before I address it directly.
As I write Im half chuckling at Lees mention of me facing the inquisition - sounds quite an intreguing proposition.
I dont think I would get burned for any of this - But who knows I might have got lucky !
The Bible. Innerancy is a relatively recent concept. The idea of an absolute verbal revelation of god is a knee jerk reaction of insecurity. Martin Luther considered the epistle of James to be an "epistle of straw". I wonder what modern evangelical protestants would make of that ?
The moderate approach which I would hope to reflect actually has a much longer pedigree in christian thought. The idea that "the bible came out of the church and the church came out of the bible" - I am indebted to bruces dad for the quote ! is more traditionally "christian".
St Pauls says "we see in part and know in part but when that which is perfect is come then shall I know as I have been fully known". Billy can correct me if I have misquoted that ! He claims partial understanding. He also makes distinctions between his own understanding and advice and that of "the lords" - what does that mean ? When he talks of the old testament he describes it as "god breathed" or inspired and he says it is a valuable resource for the church. And as Lee points out there are what appear to be irreconcilable if somewhat minor differences in the gospels - unless we look with very squint glasses I cant see any grounds for worshipping bibles.
Biblical Innerancy might be pretty much a lithmus test of fundamentalism. But In psycho therapy Absolutism and Legalism are signs of psychological immaturity. Poeple take refuge in ritual, ideas and harsh exclusive views of the world because it help them avoid the complexity of adult life.
So Lee if your not looking for the absolute - only the probable and reasonable we have our first piece of common ground. In my mind If you want only to believe absolutes - you will either end up believing in absolutely nothing - the sensible conclusion - Or you will end up believing in something absolutely silly - and yes we have a common distaste for the "god channel" billy.
To me The new testament gives a coherent message - it gives a picture of god - albeit with some cracks. But there is a difference between cracks and incoherence. Coherence demands the balance of opposites. The new testament gives such a broad expression of "possible truths" St Paul says yous hould give to anyone who asks of you but also if a man doesnt work he shouldnt eat. Jesus talks of people dying in their sins and then that it is inhumane to think a mans suffering could be cause by his sins.
That anyone could think these were contradictions is I think is a reflection of the underlying absolutism in western culture. We think that one thing neccesitates the exclusion of another. What is it the Buddhists say every thought is true as not true. Mutally supporting contradictions in natures give birth to our physical world as do apparently opposing ideas to a holistic world view. Timing is the differnce. When to think one way, when the other.
The idea of wholeness is pivotal in the new testament. I was struck at an early age by the discrepancy between jesus' encounters with people and the sort of "jesus decision" which evangelicals demanded of people at their crusades. The recurring physical theme in the gospels is about jesus making people Whole. Wholeness neccesitates the embracing of opposites. The observer and the observed are part of the same continumum which is perhaps the only "absolute".
The opposites can sometimes appear to crash together. There will always be patches and cracks in any holistic knowledge system. Jigsaws of one piece are very easy to make ! At lot of what lee mentions about the new testament are genuine concerns within the christian theism. What I was saying to billy about the synod wasnt just a simple "pop" - his concerns are concerns within the christian tradition. Some theists are happy to embarce uncertaintly and critical investigation without abandoning their faith. I have a gut reaction that faith should be reasonable.
I see if I can write a bit about the points tommorow lee and to billy about law and the new testament. Im happy to open up these problems and just look at them in debate.
As I say in a jigsaw puzzle there will always be cracks. Its nice to play with the disputable edges and hopefully make the jigsaw and the theory fit together better, but to refuse to look at the picture in the puzzle because their are cracks is in my mind self defeating. Lee likes certainty I like the excitement of big pictures - whole systems of knowledge.
Im happy to concede their is a continum of certainty. Im happy to say faith is faith because it goes beyond the strict neccesitates of rationality. However the leap of faith is rather like saying im going to stop looking at the cracks in this jigsaw and just look at the big picture. Once you start looking at the picture - the wholeness - then it all fits together - their is that complete sense of recognition - it all fits together. The cracks arent as important. Thats why I mention gestalt as method - its the closest I can get to the sense of "it clicks" that you get in christian theism. Coherence Wholeness, completness to me are possibly more important rational than probablity and certainity.
"you shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free" Is that in the gnostic gospels as well Billy ?
night night
and thanks for your posts
Rob.
p.s Billy ill swap slavery for homsexuality if you like - as a point of debate - it shows the church backed something which most people now would think completely out of character with its underlying ethos. Gay-theology for whatever reason is obviously still filed as work in progress. As Im sure you know There is controversy over what type of homosexuality the bible condemns. I havent read that much about it.
The chair argument ? I never really got into lewis's "abolition of man" sketchy anthropology - I never thought I was one of his better works. I think what you mean by his chair argument is pretty much his neo-platonism which Lewis will admit is a way of explaining christian thought - its not really part of the apostolic tradition.
So Im not really raising those ghosts in argument. Ill try and explain myself tommorow. Thanks for giving me a fuller idea of your understanding of the formation of the new testamnet
Rob.
Hi Rob,
As I write Im half chuckling at Lees mention of me facing the inquisition - sounds quite an intreguing proposition.
There were not the funny people we see in the Monty Python sketches – no comfy chairs and cushions.
You can laugh at it now since the church has been “tamed” a hell of a lot – but take a read at your history books, it was not always this way as you know.
Your views on Christianity would get you a visit from the inquisition for sure if you lived 450 years ago in a Catholic country. I wonder how you try and convince them that they are wrong, and you are right?
I dont think I would get burned for any of this - But who knows I might have got lucky !
Today you are safe – “Cake or Death” as Eddie Izzard pointed, is the CoE version today.
(Take a look at youtube – the Lego version is very funny, I cannot search youtube at work – access denied)
The Bible. Innerancy is a relatively recent concept.
Define recent - then think of the cause... it was only when the ideas of the bible were challenged did it cause a problem for the church and this position was taken.
Before the bible and church were challenge, it didn’t need to take a defensive position – “everyone knew” the bible was correct.
So it is “funny” if you read history – when Copernicus introduced his heliocentric model, the church was not that concerned it seems at first... they did not see it as a challenged (merely a mathematical model – I don’t think they thought about it much).
Even when Galileo came along, the heads of the Catholic Church didn’t have any major problems, and even said Galileo could discuss both topics (Geo and helio centric models) in his books - though the local friendly inquisition wanted to stop the teaching of it all, they knew which way the wind would be blowing.
However when people started to point out the differences between the bible, the church teachings and this new model – started questioning “Why didn’t the bible tell us this, something is wrong” THEN the church started to take the heliocentric model as a challenge against the bible. Then the dogma came... the thumb screws started to tighten.
The church feared loss of control, the loss of its central position of the source of all knowledge – they fought hard and dirty to maintain this position, some are still fighting today.
So the more science pushes the bible, the harder the literal readers of the bible pushed back.
Now of course the heliocentric model is accepted (but not without a fight as I said), the same was true with the flat earth ideas.
It is good to see though that the Roman Catholic church at least has learnt a little from its mistakes – accepting evolution and the Big Bang models (with a few caveats of course) – though with so many different churches, you can pick the one you like the most.
However just look at the challenges people are giving against evolution to see the problem still exists and has been going on since people (and science) started to think for themselves about the world.
The idea of an absolute verbal revelation of god is a knee jerk reaction of insecurity.
Agree.
And as Lee points out there are what appear to be irreconcilable if somewhat minor differences in the gospels - unless we look with very squint glasses I cant see any grounds for worshipping bibles.
“appear”? – I challenge you to “square the circle” with the examples I gave you then.
“minor”? – One of my points was how you get into heaven. If that is a minor point for you and in Christian teaching, then please tell me.
The bible has mistakes, do you agree to this? (I think you do)
If the bible is the sole source of evidence for your theistic god and Jesus Christ, and has mistakes, this should start ringing alarm bells.
If you say the bible is not the sole source of evidence, then please tell me how you “know” about Jesus without it.
So Lee if your not looking for the absolute - only the probable and reasonable we have our first piece of common ground. In my mind If you want only to believe absolutes - you will either end up believing in absolutely nothing - the sensible conclusion - Or you will end up believing in something absolutely silly
I don’t believe in absolutes as I said – probability and likelihood is the best I’m looking for.
Can I be absolutely certain there are no fairies at the bottom of my garden? No, of course not – but the likelihood is very small, maybe they have just moved in when I wasn’t looking.
Probability is my only certainty.
To me The new testament gives a coherent message - it gives a picture of god - albeit with some cracks.
So what do you need to do to get into heaven then or is this just a small crack for you?
What about the Old Testament – is the NT message coherent with that? If not, why not? Does that bother you?
Without the OT what is the NT about?
What wasn’t there a story about the foolish man who built his house on the sand?
At lot of what lee mentions about the new testament are genuine concerns within the christian theism.
Just a lucky guess from me?
Any alarm bells ringing for you yet?
I have a gut reaction that faith should be reasonable.
How do you measure and test this “reasonableness” of faith?
Why can’t two people who use only faith agree on truth? (i.e. Muslim and Christian)
Lee likes certainty I like the excitement of big pictures - whole systems of knowledge.
Sorry, what did I say about absolutes and certainty?
I like to test my conclusions – if not I will doubt them. How certain is that?
The trouble, as I said, when you look only at the “big picture” is you cannot see the wood for the trees... take knowledge in little chucks and test each conclusion, that is all you can do.
Look at a massive problem, and you don’t know where to between. Start small and build up is the only way – if you are on the right path the pieces of the jigsaw will fit nicely in place, if they do not fit, change paths – this is why science works.
One last thing on certainty... are you certain “God did it” BTW?
Im happy to concede their is a continum of certainty.
A range of certainty – never 100% - we might be able to agree.
Im happy to say faith is faith because it goes beyond the strict neccesitates of rationality.
Do you wish to expand on this? Are you saying faith isn’t rational?
What did you just say about “faith should be reasonable”? You seem to have created a contradiction somewhere?
As I said, the questions I put to Bruce on faith is open to all – care to answer them before you use faith as an answer to anything – your circular reasoning is getting me dizzy?
(Do you want me to repeat the questions again?)
However the leap of faith is rather like saying im going to stop looking at the cracks in this jigsaw and just look at the big picture.
The details can be rather important.
If you ignore the “cracks” you could be buying into a con-trick.
How do you know if you don’t check the details?
Would you buy a car merely on “faith”? Or would you check the details like engine, mileage, MOT certificate, ownership documents, and service history?
I would be amazed if you purchased a car from someone who merely answered “trust me” to all your “tough” questions, who did not offer any evidence for his answers – the “cracks” as you point it in the car transaction example.
Would you just look at the “Big picture” – the freshly painted car and hand over your $10,000?
Of course not... so I will not take a “leap of faith” until some of these cracks are resolved - since the words “take a leap of faith” sound like the words of a conman – trust me :)
See ya
Lee
billy,
You say it doesnt matter what man thinks of homosexuality. I think it does matter what the biblical authors were talking about when they condemned homosexuality. As you can see from the link I sent homosexuality in the ancient world was largely percieved in terms of gender roles - married men treating other men as woman - extending their range so to speak did the canaanites ritualise this in their fertitlity worship ? and age roles old men and little boys - the greeks ritualised this.
In the time of the bible The concept of a modern homesexual had not arisen in public debate.To quote John J Mcneil : "There is ample evidence that in most instances where scripture deals with homosexuality the author probably had in mind what today we would call perversion, namely, theindulgence in homosexual activity on the part if those who were by nature heterosexually inclined.
Get a copy of Irreversible on DVD if you havent seen it - observe the character tenia in full flow in the underpass and in the charming club called the rectum and tell me that such activity is not worthy of condemnation.
So if your argument about homosexuality is valid it cant demolish theism - because their are theists who may agree with you - perhaps it is an argument against bad scholarship , stupidity and the danger of anyone reading their own prejudices into the bible.
Hi Rob,
Short response? I'll get back to you later.
I dont have a problem with an errant bible - although many modern day christians do have a problem with such an idea. The bible clerly does contain inconsistencies, re-edits and variant manuscripts to name but a few problems.
I think that one of the problems that Lee and I have is with some of the clearly false claims - 6 day creation and the flood. I think it is clear that these are meant to be taken as literal. This is not the same as biblical inerrancy.
I would rather stick to the gay thing if you dont mind, because the point is what is the nature of god. Is he loving, and if so, how can you explain this hatered of gays.
Out of interest though, do you accept that the bible promotes slavery?
I am also curious to know what it would mean to any of the christians here if they were to come to the realisation that there was no god. How would that affect you?
Hi Rob,
There is no evidence that the law relating to homosexuality has any qualifictions or refers to anything other than homosexual activity in general - the law is absolute in this respect. To claim otherwise ignores the fact that you are still ordered to kill people. It is what god demands, and I still say it is not a loving act.
I dont think my opinion on irreversible would be relevant to whether homosexuality is wrong or not, and what god wants done to them.
I am not using it as an argument against theism as such - a perfectly evil god is a theological possibility afterall. I am using it as an argument that the christian god is not this so called god of love. There is an inconsistency between the OT and the NT. The honest person is faced with the possibility that OT and NT god are different entities or that gd changes his character. I dont think it is being intellectually honest to say that the bible contains some apparently nasty stuff, but we cant understand it and must have faith that god is good. It often comes across that is what christians believe without justification.
And some christians certainly do agree with killing homosexuals. Can you demonstrate why they are wrong? they are following the bible, but you seem to dismiss it. Do you think it is perhaps secular values that actually shapes your own morality?
If the old testament is condemning ritualised perversion - rather like st paul in the new testament then there is no problem. In modern terms one could say being homosexually inclined and being a heterosexual out for new kicks are two different things.
Have you seen Gaspar Noe's Irreversible ? or Pasolini's Salo. I dont think god would need to kill such characters as these films present - such individuals have long since killed any part of themselves that could be described as human.
When I worked in London , my department traded with a rather infamous coin dealer. As I heard the stories which circulated about him - It occured to me that this was the type of person who the ancient biblical language could still adumbrate : animal, vegetable, mineral - sexual deparivity was an instrument he played with a disturbing virtuosity.
Back to work
Rob
Billy ,
in response to you last post. I dont think the OT god is as vile and horrible as you portray, and I do think the descrepancies between the ot and the nt can be described in evolutionary terms - jesus drew out the fullness of the laws intentions. I also think the god of love - the god of eddie izzards cake choice - is rather soft soap. If god is holy - or whole however you want to translate this idea - then his love must be counterbalanced by hate or abhorennce. And I do think the bible offers good grounds for not killing homosexuals. I would argue against anyone who wished to wield the bible under such a pretext.
what Im really arguing is the ideas that you are dismissing are not good theology. Your not resisting a whole tradition - but rather what I have called a wild donkey of an idea . Im trying to show you Isaac walking in the fields and your rejecting hairy esau - since you seem to know at times more than me about the old testament. Your perception of the christian is very jagged - as a theory it just doesnt flow or stick together. Its very jagged. If your knowingly rejecting a consistent theory, that would be one thing. What you reject I don't recognise. So Im happy to burble on if I can present a christian view which is a little more rounded or rational that the one which I think you seem to argue against.
If I thought god didnt exist - I'd just stick with Steak and Stoicism. I happily pop of to zen retreats with one of my friends. Without god I might lose some of the mystery a little hope but I wouldnt see me wetting my pants. Im quite comfortable in an unexplained world. Yes Lee the steak does taste good and I wouldnt spoil it with the sauce that billy disgraces but Im happy to use the one Im used to. Please Eddie Izzard dont Force me to choose between a good burning on the steak or tea with that nice vicar. Both choices are unappealing
You see my actual disagreements with traditional church teaching are very slim and slight. Where I do disagree I only argue for more weight to be given to fundamental issues and for the church just to listen to people more. Overall my approaches are quite orthodox. Perhaps I use my own language but I have been taught that the sign of understanding something is the ability to express it in your own language - in the thought forms of your contemporaries and the metaphors of your own time period.
I have a customer. Must go sell some steak
best wishes
Rob
From one bill ( blake ) to another bill(y)
written 1820's ? london. Bruce will know
THE VISION OF CHRIST that thou dost see
Is my vision’s greatest enemy.
Thine has a great hook nose like thine;
Mine has a snub nose like to mine.
Thine is the Friend of all Mankind;
Mine speaks in parables to the blind.
Thine loves the same world that mine hates;
Thy heaven doors are my hell gates.
Socrates taught what Meletus
Loath’d as a nation’s bitterest curse,
And Caiaphas was in his own mind
A benefactor to mankind.
Both read the Bible day and night,
But thou read’st black where I read white
Rob, I'll need to get back in detail later (it may be a few days). This moreration business means that responses come back at times that are not always convenient.
It doesn't matter what was meant by homosexual in the bible (also, if you are a fundie, there is a few thousand years between OT and NT on homosexuality - more reasonable people would say a 5-700 years - eitherway, cultural context has changed). The fact is that god is condeming practicioners to death - that is neither loving noe forgiving. Neither is killing the first born of Egypt. You cant just make a plea to cultural context - especially as the law has no qualifications ans is supposedly perfect.
Erm... I'm sure I posted something on Friday - not here yet?
I think I have a copy at work what I posted, so it will either appear or I will repost on Monday.
Lee
ok billy so things are boiling down - capital punishment for gross sexual immorality in the ot invalidates jesus message ? Is that a what you are saying.
Fist of all if the law was perfect why did jesus say he had to fulfill it ? Why does the new testament say that "the law came by moses but grace and truth through jesus christ". Why does St Paul say the Law was "out school master to bring us to christ" ( the precise greek term is someone who walked you to school - they didnt even teach ).
Ive never really thought about capital punishment but I like the thought that criminals dont get killed - such a forgiving action is I suppose quite like jesus and would be an example of how the message he taught expressed a fuller truth than just the law.
A theocracy as Israel was sees itself as an individual body before god. If you have cancer you would probably let a surgeon cut it out. They did the same with individuals whose conduct was unworthy of their society. The law was a partial revelation. Law never makes anything perfect - it is too fixed. How can you reduce human life to an abstract verbal expression. The law in the old testament reminds me of the futility of ideologies - of circuitous verbal arguments - of the limitations of debate...
best wishes
Rob
Don't think I got that one Lee. Sorry about that, just re-post and I'll put it up.
Don't think I got that one Lee. Sorry about that, just re-post and I'll put it up.
Bugger... hope I kept a copy now, Friday was a busy day at work so it would not suprise me if I mucked up and posted it on a wrong blog - done that before :)
No matter.
Lee
Rob
ok billy so things are boiling down - capital punishment for gross sexual immorality in the ot invalidates jesus message ? Is that a what you are saying.
Rob, as I have pointed out several times, OT god and "jesus" are not the same - that is the problem - one is evil, the other is a great improvement, but could still use some improvrments. The inconsistency is the problem if you believe the story is rooted in the OT. Christians keep banging on about the consistency and development of the bible. That just is not the case.
Take this inconsistency, geopolitics, paganism, use of messianic prophecies etc, it all points to the story being false.
By the way, what is the jesus message? As far as I am aware, he has not taught anything that had been taught before him in other cultures.
Fist of all if the law was perfect why did jesus say he had to fulfill it ?
I'm suprised that you dont know :-). To take the punishment for sin, he had to live perfectly by the law, because only a perfect sacrifice would do. Yeah, I know its loopy, but that's theology for you.
Why does the new testament say that "the law came by moses but grace and truth through jesus christ".
Are you sure you are a christian? Propitiation - jesus allowed for grace through the crucifixion.
Why does St Paul say the Law was "out school master to bring us to christ" ( the precise greek term is someone who walked you to school - they didnt even teach ).
You are assuming there is some consistency here. In the OT, the law was to be observed, in the NT, we are told that the law was to show what sin is. It is not the same - however, you are getting off track here. We are talking about whether the law is perfect, not what it's function is. If you think the law was not perfect, then why does the bible say it is?
As an aside, if you want to get technical, when "paul" writes about salvation in romans, the word used suggests something that you have to work towards that is in the future.
Ive never really thought about capital punishment but I like the thought that criminals dont get killed - such a forgiving action is I suppose quite like jesus and would be an example of how the message he taught expressed a fuller truth than just the law.
That is not the message of jesus. What about hell, the lake of fire - the second death!
It seems you are cherry picking again.
They did the same with individuals whose conduct was unworthy of their society.
I cant think how to make it any more homophobic than that - well done!
Why kill homosexuals? Why not kill liars? Lying is specifically mentioned in the 10 commandments afterall.
law was a partial revelation.
No, it was perfect. See the verses above. It was also a revelation of god's moral nature - partial or not,it does not matter. This is the nature of god.
Law never makes anything perfect - it is too fixed.
So god is fixed and cannot be perfect?
Again I need to point out that the law is called perfect, whether or not it can be fully observed or not is of no relevance to what it supposedly is.
How can you reduce human life to an abstract verbal expression. The law in the old testament reminds me of the futility of ideologies - of circuitous verbal arguments - of the limitations of debate...
Well, that's the christian's problem. Christianity supposedly came about because of man's inability to live according to the "perfect" law.
Sorry billy you seem to be going somewhere I cant follow you. As a basic rule everything identifiable concept is true and false at the same time - to be identified it must be singularised and through being polarised and identifiable it becomes separate from the whole which can alone be true. In simple terms everything has a yes and no answer. If all you do is push the argumnent one way to say it is also the other way - you are not getting anywhere other than deeper into your own confusion. Your timing is out.
My impression is you think in such fixed terms that nothing but nothing can be true. Ill be blunt : mentally my impression is you want to get a bit more of a groove on.
The law is perfect and not perfect. The new testament is a development of the old testament and a complete break from it. Jesus is god and man. Man is fallen and yet retains something of the divine nature. Christ sacrifices himself for us and we participate in the sufferings of christ. How long do i have to go on - can you see the picture - the method.
You want to say the law is perfect so you can prove its not - but no-one would say such a one sided thing. The bible supports that idea and it contradicts it.
Your theology reflects bad theology as opposed to clear thinking - youve got fragments without the big picture - your wrestling with yourself.
This is not a personal attack. If I said anything else I would be lying. Its my impression.
So the bible talks about a two sided truth for a two sided world. We think by splitting wholes into parts - the problem is you cant see how they go back together. Heaven and Hell - Love and Hate - Up and Down - do you want to spend your time crying about the way the world is or do you want to make the most of it.
You go on about god killing the first born of isreal. Imagine that - a god which inflicts justice on a slave state - what an uncivilised idea. We better change the world to fit you in - see if god can make it a little softer for you so you can believe in him like some sort of well fed poodle sitting on its masters lap. Death is everwhere if you choose hopeless death as opposed to hope full death that is your own existential dilema.
And will you stop bleating the word homophobia like some sort of sheep. The old testament doesnt address modern homsexuality - so it cant be homophobic.
Is there any relevance to your mention of pauls use of salvation in romans or are you hoping demolishing a reformed fatalism will somehow disturb anyone. If you want to take a pop at the idea of "believers assurance" - youll have to join the que. You will find me in it.
Anyway back to whatever I was doing. I'm missing the football. Seems Its a happy day for the billy boys - you should get a treble now - Think you have any chance in the uefa cup ?
Best wishes
Rob.
Rob
Sorry billy you seem to be going somewhere I cant follow you. As a basic rule everything identifiable concept is true and false at the same time - to be identified it must be singularised and through being polarised and identifiable it becomes separate from the whole which can alone be true. In simple terms everything has a yes and no answer. If all you do is push the argumnent one way to say it is also the other way - you are not getting anywhere other than deeper into your own confusion. Your timing is out.
This is your opinion, not an explanation. It really is quite simple if you are going to take 1cor 13 as your example of what love is - which as a christian, I presume you do- then the OT god is not one of love.
My impression is you think in such fixed terms that nothing but nothing can be true. Ill be blunt : mentally my impression is you want to get a bit more of a groove on.
Erm, see above - to be blunt, you want to get a grip.
Where do you gen the impression I believe nothing can be true?
The law is perfect and not perfect. The new testament is a development of the old testament and a complete break from it. Jesus is god and man. Man is fallen and yet retains something of the divine nature. Christ sacrifices himself for us and we participate in the sufferings of christ. How long do i have to go on - can you see the picture - the method.
Here is a dictionary definition of perfect to help you out :"being complete of its kind and without defect or blemish"
Something can not be both perfect and imperfect at the same time. it is a contradiction.
Care to back up the other stuff?
You want to say the law is perfect so you can prove its not - but no-one would say such a one sided thing. The bible supports that idea and it contradicts it.
This is getting weirder - the bible says the law is perfect - do you disagree with it? If so, on what basis do you claim otherwise?
Your theology reflects bad theology as opposed to clear thinking - youve got fragments without the big picture - your wrestling with yourself.
There we go again every christian on the planet thinks his theology is the only right one. Care to say where I am going wrong? More importantly, care to say why? This is one of the reasons many atheists find theology to be a non subject - you all wrestle with highly interpretive agenda basrd texts that often had a particular social context.
This is not a personal attack. If I said anything else I would be lying. Its my impression.
Impressions are not facts or evidence. I have an impression of you, but I dont use that in my argument that OT god fails to live up to the standards of love - particularly if we define it 1 cot 13 terms - which I can accept for the sake of a common reference point - although I would modify it slightly.
So the bible talks about a two sided truth for a two sided world.
This is a total non sequitir!
We think by splitting wholes into parts - the problem is you cant see how they go back together. Heaven and Hell - Love and Hate - Up and Down - do you want to spend your time crying about the way the world is or do you want to make the most of it.
Not only have not provided any evidence that I am splitting some whole, but you seem to then be saying that god contains evil. Is that what you believe?
You go on about god killing the first born of isreal.
No, try Egypt (ex 11)
Imagine that - a god which inflicts justice on a slave state - what an uncivilised idea.
Yeah, imagine a god who kills all the innocent first born of Egypt because he has a gripe with one man who would not do what god wanted. To make matteres even worse, he hardened the heart of this man in the first place so he could not do what was asked of him - very just!
So you believe god's interactions are testable then?
We better change the world to fit you in - see if god can make it a little softer for you so you can believe in him like some sort of well fed poodle sitting on its masters lap. Death is everwhere if you choose hopeless death as opposed to hope full death that is your own existential dilema.
Sorry Rob, but could you actually point me to any part of that rant that provides evidence that god is just?
And will you stop bleating the word homophobia like some sort of sheep. The old testament doesnt address modern homsexuality - so it cant be homophobic.
You have not shown otherwise. This is a typical apologits strategy to avoid the issue that god orders the death penalty for people who have homosexual sex. How is discriminating against homosexuals not homophobia? I also asked why not single out those who break the 10 commandments like liars too - sounds like further discrimination.
Is there any relevance to your mention of pauls use of salvation in romans or are you hoping demolishing a reformed fatalism will somehow disturb anyone. If you want to take a pop at the idea of "believers assurance" - youll have to join the que. You will find me in it.
I would suggest that is the opposite of fatalism. My point was just a digression to emphasise the problems of theology.
Anyway back to whatever I was doing. I'm missing the football. Seems Its a happy day for the billy boys - you should get a treble now - Think you have any chance in the uefa cup ?
Who knows, depends on whether smith goes for goals at ibrox. Lets hope he doesn't use mcculloch as a lone striker.
Billy
Even if I was still an atheist, I would find your view of human experience needlessly two-dimensional and limiting. I get the impression you regard yourself as a good person (not a criticism), and that this is as important to you as science. Doesn't this suggest that morality is as important as science thus validating attempts to understand/communicate it e.g. philosophy and theology? It would seem strange for a scientist - who would look askance at someone content to marvel at the universe ("ooh, those stars are lovely!") without understanding it - to regard morality as either something which doesn't exist in the absolute sense or which shouldn't be grist for -ologies. I'm also curious as to what your opinion of the role of art in human experience; if you asked me to "prove" why, for example, Auden should be regarded as a great poet I could muster an argument but I doubt it would satisfy your dry scientific concept of what constitutes proof.
Follow, Follow!
Hi Ryan,
To you Auden may be a great poet, but that does not mean he is actually a great poet. What he touches in you, he may not touch in others. It is highly personal, but like morality, it does not mean it is an absolute fact that he is great.
If find understanding nature more, makes you go wow even more. However, no matter how much I go wow, it does not add to my understanding of what truth is.
I think something cn go wow without you understanding it, but wanting to understand it can also increase the pleasure.
Currently, I have a fascination about how venus fly traps could have evolved, but just going wow (as I do) does not help me understand them any more.
Hope that answers your question.
We are the people :-)
I seriously hope he doesnt use mccullouch as a lone striker - just go for it - pack the forwards in - borrow some of sportings if he has to. Didnt they make the final a couple of years ago ?
Regards your last post - Suppose you could say its getting weirder but I trying to get to the fire not the smoke. Perhaps I can express myself in literary methods - you want to define a text and then take the rest of the bible to task on it - why do you think I joke about you making a great reformer. Youve got the methods down to a tee !
You want to define love and then show that god cannot be a god of love because of what he allows in the world and then probably in the same sweep discount the new testament god is so different from the ot god that the christian message is invalidated. Am I right ?
But you definition of love will be exclusive - exclusive of justice and loathing - so it will naturally exclude the possibility of anything else being compatible with it.
Your pretty much saying if I start talking rubbish I will end up talking it. What does this really have to do with the new testament. With such a naieve approach your at risk of any moral tradition crashing on top of you.
You fail to see the potential wholeness of the bible. You think Love contradicts Justice. You want to take one part of the bible and run roughshod through the rest claiming contradiction. It might be a contradiction to you but who else ? Horses for Courses. The bible says a lot of things - whose cherry picking now ?
"If you right eye offend you cut it off - it is better to enter into heaven blind than into hell with two eyes." I suppose fortitude contradicts love as well as the ot ?
But thats not all You want to present the past as the present and then accuse the past ( the old testament ) of being immoral.
I cant help if you want to make daily record comments on history. After all you show this ot verse on "homosexuality" like it was page 3. Great shock value .But Im afraid it has as much to do with modern queer bashing than a picture of a girls breasts have to do with real sex. Your argument is not an answer to Propaganda it is an echo of it.
Its such simple historical method I cant be bothered to even write it. Killing an individual is offensive in a culture which deifies individualism. Phenomenological tourism is a relavtively recent luxury. Put yourself in the ancient world and the pharoah is eygpt and eygpt is the firstborn. Ancient cultures thought as themselves as a cultural bodies - bloodlines - strange that yaweh called israel his firstborn? You seem to have an interest in matthews quotes of the ot.
I suppose that proves the ot was wrong because gods grammar was mistaken - he reffered to a nation as an individual and this proves he "cant talk right". No point believing in him.
Given your method I could make up a whole host of objections to biblical coherence and the immorality of the ot. But until you widen your lens thats all your going to come up with : objections.
Lets hope the Lisbon defence is a not quite as resiliant as your good self.
best wishes
Rob.
regarding perfection:
The laws perfection depends on where you stand. In christian eyes before and after jesus might be a good starting point.
It is the law either way - but it appears perfect and imperfect from different perspectives.
Is that a "weird" thing to say . Its it illogical ? Then you will probably just say it is unsubstantiable. So why dont you back up something up for a change. Find some ot writers denouncing the law and yaweh , praising say fertlity cults and ritualised homosexual perversion. Then find some new testament pasages raving about the completeness and perfectness of the law and how jesus didnt exist and if he did they wouldnt be interested anyway because the ot law was so great.
Remember we want absolute passages - nothing that could be interpreted in the context of an opposing view - nothing that forms part of a living tradition. In fact probably best not use the bible at all then. Thats not a good place to start. In fact Just say it and it will be so. Like Caiaphas ?
Hi Rob,
Thankfully Sporting are struggling at the mo.
You want to define love and then show that god cannot be a god of love because of what he allows in the world and then probably in the same sweep discount the new testament god is so different from the ot god that the christian message is invalidated. Am I right ?
I am not defining love here - Paul has done that (1 cor 13). Do you have a problem with his definition?
Could you define the christian message before I answer that question?
As I keep saying, OT god is nasty and it is a glaring contradiction with the god of love idea. It makes for a man made story.
But you definition of love will be exclusive - exclusive of justice and loathing - so it will naturally exclude the possibility of anything else being compatible with it.
Tell it to Paul. What is just about killing homosexuals. Why is it wrong?
With such a naieve approach your at risk of any moral tradition crashing on top of you.
Morality is relative. That's the point.
You fail to see the potential wholeness of the bible. You think Love contradicts Justice.
Now, where did I say that? Where is the loving justice of killing a homosexual and sending them to hell?
You want to take one part of the bible and run roughshod through the rest claiming contradiction. It might be a contradiction to you but who else ?
A contradiction is still a contradiction even if you fail to notice it. You are doing a lot of accusing her (often incorrectly) without actually backing up yur position.
whose cherry picking now ?
Still you!
I suppose fortitude contradicts love as well as the ot ?
Does it? Would it be relevant if it did?
But thats not all You want to present the past as the present and then accuse the past ( the old testament ) of being immoral.
More accusations. Are you a relativist then? However, Jesus did say the law will always stand. That then is a problem for you.
I cant help if you want to make daily record comments on history. After all you show this ot verse on "homosexuality" like it was page 3. Great shock value .But Im afraid it has as much to do with modern queer bashing than a picture of a girls breasts have to do with real sex. Your argument is not an answer to Propaganda it is an echo of it.
I am still waiting for a demonstration. Then, if you can do that, I'm waiting to find out what is even slightly loving - or just about killing people.
Its such simple historical method I cant be bothered to even write it.
So you have no evidence then?
Killing an individual is offensive in a culture which deifies individualism. Phenomenological tourism is a relavtively recent luxury. Put yourself in the ancient world and the pharoah is eygpt and eygpt is the firstborn. Ancient cultures thought as themselves as a cultural bodies - bloodlines - strange that yaweh called israel his firstborn? You seem to have an interest in matthews quotes of the ot.
And how does any of this pardon god's actions? Are you saying that the individual is not important? Also, the OT is full of individualism.
You omited the bit about god preventing Pharoah from complying. This is a typical apologetic non answer.
I suppose that proves the ot was wrong because gods grammar was mistaken - he reffered to a nation as an individual and this proves he "cant talk right". No point believing in him.
Sorry Rob, did god slaughter the first born or not?
If you are saying the grammar is wrong, then god obviously does not care about his word - or does not exist.
Given your method I could make up a whole host of objections to biblical coherence and the immorality of the ot. But until you widen your lens thats all your going to come up with : objections.
You mean use the filter of faith where you just accept there is no problem. Been there. the only problem with that is it just causes more questions.
It is the law either way - but it appears perfect and imperfect from different perspectives.
Jesus said it still stands! Paul says those who do not accept jesus are bound by the law. You really do not have scope to claim otherwise.
Is that a "weird" thing to say . Its it illogical ? Then you will probably just say it is unsubstantiable. So why dont you back up something up for a change. Find some ot writers denouncing the law and yaweh , praising say fertlity cults and ritualised homosexual perversion. Then find some new testament pasages raving about the completeness and perfectness of the law and how jesus didnt exist and if he did they wouldnt be interested anyway because the ot law was so great.
I dont need to find anything other than I have shown you. The bible says the law is perfect and paul and jesus endorse it. You are the one that has to find a verse saying the law is imperfect.
Remember we want absolute passages - nothing that could be interpreted in the context of an opposing view - nothing that forms part of a living tradition. In fact probably best not use the bible at all then. Thats not a good place to start. In fact Just say it and it will be so. Like Caiaphas ?
And you have been given them. Do you honestly think that when the bible says something id perfect, it actually means it isn't. I've not seen any case presented by you so far. You seem to be in deep denial here.
Billy,
I try to get you to stop looking at the edges of the jigsaw pieces and and see the big picture - but all you do is keep turning over the individual pieces. On the back of the jigsaw their is just cardboard. Its pretty bland. You can understand why some people dont want to play with you at turning over jigsaws. You might be infuriated by the cracks but that is up to you. Some of us like the big picture.
bouncy bouncy
rob
Hi Rob,
I've got a cold, so will be brief. I am looking at the big picture. I dont feel you are.
The blue bells are blue
Billy,
This big picture you are looking at. Tell me What do you see ? I'm moving on to "fools gold". Bruces new post. Feel free to share with us your vision. I'm not holding a monopoly on rambling...
Rob
P.S. Does anyone in glasgow still refer to the boys in blue as the "teddy bears" or was that a thing that went out of fashion with the bay city rollers.
Rob, the big picture is that the bible is a composite work reflecting different human agendas - what do you see?
Yes, they are still refered to by that name.
Post a Comment