OFFICIAL: Biblical/Theology Discussion thread

[SmoovP]

With all due respect Smoov, I place her above you in terms of logic and writing skills.

I'll bet my paycheck today that you were raised a Christian, taught all about God and Jesus from as far back as you can remember. That's usually how it works, and it has nothing to do with the credibility of the bible (it has none) but rather simply being a product of one's environment. Odds are high if you had been born in Riyadh you'd sense every bit the same calling to serve Allah.

So you're a Christian who rejects major tenants of Christianity.

Inventing your variation of religion is no less (or more) credible than following the flock.

Soooo.....






I take it you're a big Ayn Rand fan.

 

[SmoovP]

OK, I'll give this the serious reply it doesn't really deserve.

With all due respect Smoov, I place her above you in terms of logic and writing skills.

Regardless of what you or I may or may not think about Ms. Rand's ethos, her writing is shrill, sophomoric and melodramatic. While it is possible to find some reviews of her writing style that aren't negative, she is not a widely admired writer by people who opine on these things. Is she a better writer than me? Probably, but I don't make a living as a writer - my wife is the writer in the family. Does she possess better 'logic skills' than me? Hard for me to say, as I'm not the one to objectively answer that question. Perhaps you are right, perhaps not - it's a pretty subjective question I think.

I'll bet my paycheck today that you were raised a Christian, taught all about God and Jesus from as far back as you can remember. That's usually how it works, and it has nothing to do with the credibility of the bible (it has none) but rather simply being a product of one's environment. Odds are high if you had been born in Riyadh you'd sense every bit the same calling to serve Allah.

Yes, I was raised a Christian. Yes, if I had been born in Riyadh, I would likely have been raised as a Muslim. I recognize this - which leads us to your next point.

So you're a Christian who rejects major tenants of Christianity.

Because I recognize that location, timing and access have a major role in the development of our individual belief systems - along with other things like personality, environment and a host of others - logically, I have decided that I can't conceive of a God who would exclude a vast, majority of humankind from the promise of Salvation.

I am aware of the arguments from my Christian brethren who will jump through theological hoops defending that concept, but for me, I reject them. I believe we encounter God where and when we find him, and that there are many paths to Salvation. I fully realize this is antithetical to mainstream Christian thought.

I choose Christianity precisely because it is familiar and comfortable to me. It gives me a broad ethical and moral framework that works for me and countless others.

It does not mean that I swallow every thing that Christianity teaches, or is a blind adherence to any particular set of denominational beliefs and rules.

Like I said in my first post on this topic, I hold beliefs that to many christians would disqualify me from claiming to be a "Christian" and I'm ok with that. And to be perfectly honest, I see their point. I've decided that I won't cede the term 'Christian' to people who seek to exclude others and narrow the definition. I believe in what I understand about the teachings of Jesus, so I'm claiming the label.

My beliefs are my own. I'm happy to discuss them with anyone and happy to learn more about yours. We can have a wide-ranging friendly discussion about them and I will defend your right to hold whatever beliefs you have - up to the point that anyone tries to impose their beliefs on me and mine. At that point we are in conflict.

It should also be said that belief in a literal, infallible Bible are not universal among Christian denominations. Christianity is not a monolith of universal beliefs.

Inventing your variation of religion is no less (or more) credible than following the flock.

I haven't claimed credibility. I simply stated my beliefs. You are free to accept them or reject them as you see fit.

I am not trying to convert anyone, start a religion or take anyone's money but simply participate in a conversation that I find interesting.

I hope this clears things up for you.

 

[muffler dragon]

Because I recognize that location, timing and access have a major role in the development of our individual belief systems - along with other things like personality, environment and a host of others - logically, I have decided that I can't conceive of a God who would exclude a vast, majority of humankind from the promise of Salvation.

I am aware of the arguments from my Christian brethren who will jump through theological hoops defending that concept, but for me, I reject them. I believe we encounter God where and when we find him, and that there are many paths to Salvation. I fully realize this is antithetical to mainstream Christian thought.

FWIW, there are some branches of Christianity (and other religions as a whole) that are universalist as well.

 

[SmoovP]

FWIW, there are some branches of Christianity (and other religions as a whole) that are universalist as well.

Indeed.

It should also be said that belief in a literal, infallible Bible are not universal among Christian denominations. Christianity is not a monolith of universal beliefs.

 

[buckeyegrad]

PLAYBOY: Where, would you say, should romantic love fit into the life of a rational person whose single driving passion is work?

RAND: It is his greatest reward. The only man capable of experiencing a profound romantic love is the man driven by passion for his work -- because love is an expression of self-esteem, of the deepest values in a man's or a woman's character. One falls in love with the person who shares these values. If a man has no clearly defined values, and no moral character, he is not able to appreciate another person. In this respect, I would like to quote from The Fountainhead, in which the hero utters a line that has often been quoted by readers: "To say 'I love you' one must know first how to say the 'I.'"

PLAYBOY: You hold that one's own happiness is the highest end, and that self-sacrifice is immoral. Does this apply to love as well as work?

RAND: To love more than to anything else. When you are in love, it means that the person you love is of great personal, selfish importance to you and to your life. If you were selfless, it would have to mean that you derive no personal pleasure or happiness from the company and the existence of the person you love, and that you are motivated only by self-sacrificial pity for that person's need of you. I don't have to point out to you that no one would be flattered by, nor would accept, a concept of that kind. Love is not self-sacrifice, but the most profound assertion of your own needs and values. It is for your own happiness that you need the person you love, and that is the greatest compliment, the greatest tribute you can pay to that person.

Seems to me that Rand is playing loose with the word "love" here. The interviewer and her are discussing eros, but then in mid-conversation she shifts to a discussion of agape, using eros to critique it. These are two very different concepts that unfortunately the English language does not differentiate by calling both "love". They do not have to be in contradiction with each other, but merely describe different passions of the heart. Yes, we can discuss which passion might be nobler or which is a higher ideal to pursue; but to dismiss one by using the other, as Rand does in this instance, is either ignorant or disingenuous--and I don't consider Rand to be an ignorant person.

 

[buckeyegrad]

But you'd have better luck convincing me that Georgia is the right university for my sons to attend than you would having a rational conversation with Jake about spirituality.

Just sign the affidavit that you are stupid and superstitious - and he is rational and intelligent - and you can just refer him to that document from here on in when the subject comes up and avoid a lot of repetitious discussions.*

Without a doubt, Jake is BP's most dogmatic, true-believer.

 

[Taosman]

There are two ways of spreading light: to be the candle or the mirror that reflects it.
Edith Wharton

 

[calibuck]

I believe Ayn Rand wrote a tome to her testimony of man's (and women's) highest achievement is work.....I seem to recall that the tenent of 'Atlas Shrugged' was a group of high achievers withdrawing to let the world tear itself apart (before they returned to set it right - in their image). So, I would agree that she believes what she said. The "Fountainhead" was also a story about a man passionate about his work (architecture) (which I think should be required reading for all those in architecture colleges).

I seem to recall that the path to heaven is not by deeds, but by Grace. If I've gotten the quote semi-correct, that negates what Rand opined. Religion has caused more deaths on this planet than anything else over time, and it's extremely personal. One is not born with it, but it evolves to you or around you. Learning more is good, but no one I know takes everything as the absolute truth. Interpreting the 2-4,000 year old book to be absolute seems to be a bit silly, but the teachings of the New Testament still seem to be applicable today. Healthy debate is a wonderful thing, but there are some things that are quickly apparent that one is not going to convince the other that their way is the correct one. In fact, debate is using the facts, and trying to overpower other people with how many facts you have versus they have. If you look at the Bible in a literal manner, "And God created the Heaven and Earth in six days and on the seventh, He rested," cannot be taken literally, but must be taken on faith. Scepticism is good, but there comes a point where one believes what one wants to believe, and that is their degree of religion.

I just know that I'm more at peace with myself with it than without it.
Let's not have bloodshed over a discussion that cannot ever have a 'winner' and a 'loser'. In the old west, by now, each of you would have pulled your pistols and had a shoot-out......peace


:gobucks3::gobucks4:

 

[muffler dragon]

I believe Ayn Rand wrote a tome to her testimony of man's (and women's) highest achievement is work.....I seem to recall that the tenent of 'Atlas Shrugged' was a group of high achievers withdrawing to let the world tear itself apart (before they returned to set it right - in their image). So, I would agree that she believes what she said. The "Fountainhead" was also a story about a man passionate about his work (architecture) (which I think should be required reading for all those in architecture colleges).

I've got a hold on the next copy of Atlas Shrugged at the library. Look forward to reading it.

I seem to recall that the path to heaven is not by deeds, but by Grace. If I've gotten the quote semi-correct, that negates what Rand opined. Religion has caused more deaths on this planet than anything else over time, and it's extremely personal. One is not born with it, but it evolves to you or around you. Learning more is good, but no one I know takes everything as the absolute truth. Interpreting the 2-4,000 year old book to be absolute seems to be a bit silly, but the teachings of the New Testament still seem to be applicable today. Healthy debate is a wonderful thing, but there are some things that are quickly apparent that one is not going to convince the other that their way is the correct one. In fact, debate is using the facts, and trying to overpower other people with how many facts you have versus they have. If you look at the Bible in a literal manner, "And God created the Heaven and Earth in six days and on the seventh, He rested," cannot be taken literally, but must be taken on faith. Scepticism is good, but there comes a point where one believes what one wants to believe, and that is their degree of religion.

I just know that I'm more at peace with myself with it than without it.
Let's not have bloodshed over a discussion that cannot ever have a 'winner' and a 'loser'. In the old west, by now, each of you would have pulled your pistols and had a shoot-out......peace


:gobucks3::gobucks4:

 

[Gatorubet]

I believe Ayn Rand wrote a tome to her testimony of man's (and women's) highest achievement is work.....I seem to recall that the tenent of 'Atlas Shrugged' was a group of high achievers withdrawing to let the world tear itself apart (before they returned to set it right - in their image). So, I would agree that she believes what she said. The "Fountainhead" was also a story about a man passionate about his work (architecture) (which I think should be required reading for all those in architecture colleges).

I seem to recall that the path to heaven is not by deeds, but by Grace. If I've gotten the quote semi-correct, that negates what Rand opined. Religion has caused more deaths on this planet than anything else over time, and it's extremely personal. One is not born with it, but it evolves to you or around you. Learning more is good, but no one I know takes everything as the absolute truth. Interpreting the 2-4,000 year old book to be absolute seems to be a bit silly, but the teachings of the New Testament still seem to be applicable today. Healthy debate is a wonderful thing, but there are some things that are quickly apparent that one is not going to convince the other that their way is the correct one. In fact, debate is using the facts, and trying to overpower other people with how many facts you have versus they have. If you look at the Bible in a literal manner, "And God created the Heaven and Earth in six days and on the seventh, He rested," cannot be taken literally, but must be taken on faith. Scepticism is good, but there comes a point where one believes what one wants to believe, and that is their degree of religion.

I just know that I'm more at peace with myself with it than without it.
Let's not have bloodshed over a discussion that cannot ever have a 'winner' and a 'loser'. In the old west, by now, each of you would have pulled your pistols and had a shoot-out......peace


:gobucks3::gobucks4:

 

[Jake]

There are two ways of spreading light: to be the candle or the mirror that reflects it.
Edith Wharton

There's just one problem, "the light" is imaginary.

 

[Jake]

Smoov, when Jake was a baby he was scared by his Sunday School teacher......or raped by a Priest when he was an Alter Boy ........or dumped by a hot Minister's daughter the night of the prom, only to find out she banged his eight best friends......or something, Heaven knows what!

Jake spent most of his life practicing catholicism on his mom's side and hearing fire-and-brimstone from the pulpit straight from his daddy. No one scared me, no one raped me, no one did anything to me. That's just the point. Nothing happened. I read the bible. I prayed. I completed the sacraments. Nothing happened. God never did anything to show its existence. More importantly, I made the mistake of logically trying to substantiate the bible. Creation, Noah's Ark, Tower of Babel, it quickly became obvious that they were just interesting tales of mythology. They make no sense in reality.

But you'd have better luck convincing me that Georgia is the right university for my sons to attend than you would having a rational conversation with Jake about spirituality.

A "rational conversation about spirituality" makes as much sense as a rational conversation about Santa Claus. Just because something has been peddled to you since the day you were born, and is "believed" by billions of people, doesn't make it real. The day you can provide a shred of evidence to support the existence of the spirits upon which you base your "spirituality" is the day I'll take it seriously. As long as it remains self delusion, there is no reason for me to have a "rational" conversation about it. It is not my responsibility to cater to your imagination.

Just sign the affidavit that you are stupid and superstitious - and he is rational and intelligent - and you can just refer him to that document from here on in when the subject comes up and avoid a lot of repetitious discussions.*

Believing in invisible ghosts and goblins is stupid and superstitious. I don't make the rules. I just adhere to them. Ignoring them doesn't make them go away. The fact that billions ignore them - for multiple gods, including ones you dismiss by the way - is irrelevant.

 

[Gatorubet]

There are two ways of spreading light: to be the candle or the mirror that reflects it.
Edith Wharton

OK...three.

 

[Jake]

OK, I'll give this the serious reply it doesn't really deserve.

Says the man who "believes" in invisible, supernatural beings and gets pissed off at those of us who call such things superstition. Pardon me if I find this assertion hilarious.

 

[jwinslow]

Well at least you cleared up any confusion over whether you're willing to engage him in a civil discussion about it instead of the same tired stereotypes and catch phrases, sprinkled in between boasting laughter.