• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!

OFFICIAL: Biblical/Theology Discussion thread

kinch;2011370; said:
This discussion seems very close to the refutation of god by, I think, Kant. I am going off memory here. . .

If god is omnipotent, omniscient, and purely benevolent, then there would be no suffering. Therefore he/she must not exist as stated. It went something like that, anyway.
This is not an unimportant point. The - I dunno - obviousness of that line of thinking - is what became the bedrock of Gnostic thinking.

The difficulty reconciling the Old Testament God - with his anthropological anger and pettiness and vindictiveness - with the New Testament God of Love and Forgiveness - helped sculpt the Gnostic version of theology. They came up with a very logical construct: the God of the Old Testament that created the earth was not the Supreme Being at all, but a Demiurg, or lesser god, that was beneath the Supreme Being.

That solved a lot of issues, like God sending a Bear to slaughter children who made fun of some guy's baldness, or who helped the Israelites slaughter every man woman and child when they took over the land after escaping from Egypt. It also explains killing everyone on Earth but Noah in a flood, leaving mankind to be repopulated by incest.

That explanation was so compelling that it became very popular in the nascent Christian movement, see the Nag Hammadi discoveries. If you read the "Gospel of Thomas" and "Gospel of Mary" you will see the influence of Greek philosophy with early Christianity. I guess it is an open question whether some of it is from the now lost "Q" source or just made up stuff by radical sects/offshoots of Christianity. In any event, some of that thought made its way to Albania and Bulgaria, and even later in the Cathar movement in France in the 12th and 13th Centuries.

It (Cathar teachings about the lesser Old Testament God being evil ) was regarded as a serious threat to traditional Catholicism, and the Church put a stop to it with the sword. After many years of trying to peacefully persuade the Cathars to stop their theological nonsense, the Pope had had enough. ( Peacefully trying to convert the Cathars is what led to the formation of the Dominicans. It did not work.)

The Pope appointed a French Noble Simon de Montfort, who got serious about the problem. Mercenaries were hired to help end the Cathar heresy. Cathar towns were attacked. To convince the Cathars that they backed the wrong God, he had his men gouge out the eyes of 100 Cathar prisoners. He had their faces mutilated by cutting off lips and ears and noses, and then had them sent back to the besieged city, led by the one prisoner who had been allowed an eye left to find the way home.

Shockingly, the people of the town took that poorly, viewed it as non-Christian, and the resistance hardened.

In July of 1209 Montfort had the entire population of twenty thousand people in the besieged city of Beziers slaughtered - men, women and children - even though a great many of the townsfolk were not Cathars, but Catholics appalled at his tactics who were supporting their neighbors. When the frightened populace sought sanctuary in the main Cathedral of St Nazaire, he set it on fire. Those that fled were butchered.

So that you don't think that everyone back then was without a conscience, there were men in his army that questioned Montfort's actions, but he said "Tuez les tous, Dieu reconnaitra les siens" - or, "Kill them all, God will recognize his own!" The few who survived were used as target practice, tortured, blinded, etc. It took a few decades, but the Cathars were wiped out. To do so it needed the start up of a group called "The Spanish Inquisition" And we all know, Nothing stops the Spanish Inquisition!!
Actually, the were the same Dominicans who had found out that they could not win in a debate, but they could win by other tactics.

With that extra "Oomph" of the Inquisition, the theological excuse of reconciling the odd attributes of the Old Testament God to a chump lesser Deity was officially abolished.

The Cathars solution strikes me as much easier to reconcile than a God that sanctions the slaughter of innocents, but that is just me.

 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
kinch;2011378; said:
I actually think we both may have guessed wrongly. I know Mill pretty well and don't think it is him. He was more of an ethics guy. Kant was religious though right? You're probably closer.

Damn it. I'll google it and edit this post with the answer.

Edit: It originated from Epicurus.

And Kant was the guy that argued that this was a reason for faith, that only faith could explain the true nature of things, and we weren't meant to know.

I am only certain that it is Mill's argument against the existence of God because I was listening to a lecture on the radio this week by the theologian/philosopher R.C. Sproul in which he was criticizing Mill for setting up a fallacy of exhaustive hypothesis.

And you finding out that Epicurus originated the argument is helpful as Sproul mentioned it was an ancient criticism that is most often attributed to Mill, but he never stated the origin.
 
Upvote 0
Gatorubet;2011421; said:
The difficulty reconciling the Old Testament God - with his anthropological anger and pettiness and vindictiveness - with the New Testament God of Love and Forgiveness - helped sculpt the Gnostic version of theology. They came up with a very logical construct: the God of the Old Testament that created the earth was not the Supreme Being at all, but a Demiurg, or lesser god, that was beneath the Supreme Being.

I am interested in what you have read that leads you to assert that the Gnostics developed their theology out of a difficulty of reconciling the Old and New Testament depictions of God. From what I have read of the Gnostics, I have never heard this interpretation. Rather, their rejection of the OT was based on their pagan/Platonist-informed views that had already pre-disposed them to consider the physical world evil before they encountered Christian teachings. And thus, when they encountered the God of the OT, in which it claims He created the physical world, they automatically defined Him as evil and as a separate/counter being from Jesus or whoever sent Jesus.

Your post also leaves me with a lot of additional questions, such as the Q hypothesis and your perception of the gnostic gospels, but I have to run now, so perhaps I'll ask them later.
 
Upvote 0
kinch;2011370; said:
This discussion seems very close to the refutation of god by, I think, Kant. I am going off memory here. . .

If god is omnipotent, omniscient, and purely benevolent, then there would be no suffering. Therefore he/she must not exist as stated. It went something like that, anyway.

Edit: to clarify, it was really a simple argument. Being omniscient, god would know of all suffering, being benevolent, he would prevent it with his omnipotent powers. Any suffering would require that he either didn't know of it, didn't care, or couldn't do anything about it.

The common argument from the Christian theologians was that we needed to suffer to understand. . . whatever. The obvious counter argument was that if god was omnipotent he could make us understand without the suffering.

This is a big focus of Christian Liberation Theologies - at a high level, theologies within communities that have experienced specific and abject suffering... very cool realm of theological study :wink:
 
Upvote 0
I think that when it comes to discussing is there or isn't there a God it's all guess work. There's no way to know for sure. What we learn as children about God is explained so simply that by the time we get older we suddenly realize that anyone with an IQ high than Forest Gump understands that it's all BS. That doesn't mean there isn't a God. It just means that we don't know. If there is something out there I believe that it's beyond human intelligence to comprehend.
 
Upvote 0
buckeyegrad;2011427; said:
I am interested in what you have read that leads you to assert that the Gnostics developed their theology out of a difficulty of reconciling the Old and New Testament depictions of God. From what I have read of the Gnostics, I have never heard this interpretation. Rather, their rejection of the OT was based on their pagan/Platonist-informed views that had already pre-disposed them to consider the physical world evil before they encountered Christian teachings. And thus, when they encountered the God of the OT, in which it claims He created the physical world, they automatically defined Him as evil and as a separate/counter being from Jesus or whoever sent Jesus.

I've learned to understand the Gnostics and gnosis in an even different way... not sure if this is the thread to start a Gnostic-focuses discussion, but would love to get more into this. The Gnostics, from my high-level understanding, and reading of many of the Gnostic gospels is more closely akin to what we might consider an inherent mysticism to the 'movement' in which, quite literally, a deeper, more esoteric understanding of Christ's teachings was sought...

Your post also leaves me with a lot of additional questions, such as the Q hypothesis and your perception of the gnostic gospels, but I have to run now, so perhaps I'll ask them later.

yup, me too... the Q hypothesis - that there is a source document, "Q" which is the foundation for Mark and, subsequently, pieces of Luke and Matthew (for the beginners, and correct me where I'm wrong) is not that contraversial as a hypothesis, from what I understand, outside of Biblical literalists. That being said, the Gospel of St. Thomas (I believe), a collection of Jesus' saying, is thought to be, perhaps, as fundamental if not moreso than Mark, rivaling Q...

As for a general 'preception of the gnostic gospels' ... I mean... where do we start? This thread just got fun again!
 
Upvote 0
buckeyegrad;2011427; said:
I am interested in what you have read that leads you to assert that the Gnostics developed their theology out of a difficulty of reconciling the Old and New Testament depictions of God. From what I have read of the Gnostics, I have never heard this interpretation. Rather, their rejection of the OT was based on their pagan/Platonist-informed views that had already pre-disposed them to consider the physical world evil before they encountered Christian teachings. And thus, when they encountered the God of the OT, in which it claims He created the physical world, they automatically defined Him as evil and as a separate/counter being from Jesus or whoever sent Jesus.

Grad, that is because I spoke poorly. My reference to the Greek philosophers was meant to say that the influence you spoke of was already a force when they encountered the new Christian movement, and I did not mean to imply that early Christians resolving the OT/NT dichotomy were not already looking at the issue through lenses that might have been formed by pagan or Greek philosophy. But I do not think the reaction to the OT was a simple as being a "Creator" = bad response, so much as the logical view when one looks at the anthropological jerk one sometimes sees in the OT and the very different being that one sees in the NT.

buckeyegrad;2011427; said:
Your post also leaves me with a lot of additional questions, such as the Q hypothesis and your perception of the gnostic gospels, but I have to run now, so perhaps I'll ask them later.
Nothing deep on Q, I just think it is hard to know which parts of the various Gnostic tomes are not authentic when parts of them are pure NT passages, and parts full goose nutsy looking to modern eyes. It is obviously a guessing game as to what might be in Q - or if a Q really existed.
 
Upvote 0
kinch;2011370; said:
If god is benevolent, then there would be no suffering. Therefore he/she must not exist as stated.

being benevolent, he would prevent it with his omnipotent powers.

Copying this part not as a response to Kinch, but instead, simply a statement on "benevolence". For me personally, I have no problem with believing in an omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent G-d. However, I have difficulty with laying "benevolence" into the situation. Reason being: benevolence is a human understanding of interaction. It's something that our finite minds can grasp, but additionally, it adds our own subjective definition to the meaning. Whereas, our finite minds can't grasp the omni-'s. For me, G-d may or may not be benevolent according to human distinction, but it's ultimately, not an argument that has any ground in my belief structure (right now).
 
Upvote 0
From a logical standpoint, this thread is an anomaly that exists nowhere else. No other subject treats points of view that have zero evidence to support them as credible (well maybe politics, but that's another forum). The Jesus cult has as much evidence to support their theories as Jonestown and Scientology, yet Christianity is treated as a credible cult based solely on popularity (hence the difference between a religion and a cult).

Christians repeatedly act like it is up to non believers to prove them wrong when - once again - logic says the burden of proof lies with them. Your "God" is as real as Santa Claus until you prove it is real. Until then, all you have to offer are illogical rationalizations, straw men, and white noise. Frankly, I've read that shit so many times on the internet (here and elsewhere) that I'm pretty much done entertaining it. Offer something of substance, or shut the hell up about it. :)
 
Upvote 0
If you want "logic", become a Buddhist! Not that the practice of Buddhism is a bad thing at all!
lhttp://www.purifymind.com/QuestionsBS.htm

We "believe" in many things that have no "logic" or "reason".
Take love, for instance! When people fall in love any sense of "logic" or "reason" is washed away! Yet, love is what defines us as human! Love and war our thought to be our greatest endeavors! Belief is a part of the human experience!
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Jake;2012370; said:
From a logical standpoint, this thread is an anomaly that exists nowhere else. No other subject treats points of view that have zero evidence to support them as credible (well maybe politics, but that's another forum). The Jesus cult has as much evidence to support their theories as Jonestown and Scientology, yet Christianity is treated as a credible cult based solely on popularity (hence the difference between a religion and a cult).

Christians repeatedly act like it is up to non believers to prove them wrong when - once again - logic says the burden of proof lies with them. Your "God" is as real as Santa Claus until you prove it is real. Until then, all you have to offer are illogical rationalizations, straw men, and white noise. Frankly, I've read that shit so many times on the internet (here and elsewhere) that I'm pretty much done entertaining it. Offer something of substance, or shut the hell up about it. :)

So... it's incumbent on those you don't agree with to stop talking.

Here's what I propose, Jake. If it bothers you so much, and you have no respect for the discussion anyway, why don't you butt out? I doubt any of our christian posters are holding a gun to your head saying READ this shit Jake.

So.. in the words of Eddie Izzard.... Fuck off. :)
 
Upvote 0
kinch;2011370; said:
This discussion seems very close to the refutation of god by, I think, Kant. I am going off memory here. . .

If god is omnipotent, omniscient, and purely benevolent, then there would be no suffering. Therefore he/she must not exist as stated. It went something like that, anyway.

Edit: to clarify, it was really a simple argument. Being omniscient, god would know of all suffering, being benevolent, he would prevent it with his omnipotent powers. Any suffering would require that he either didn't know of it, didn't care, or couldn't do anything about it.

The common argument from the Christian theologians was that we needed to suffer to understand. . . whatever. The obvious counter argument was that if god was omnipotent he could make us understand without the suffering.

how does one understand a concept defined by its contrast to its opposite without knowing what its opposite is like ?

as human parents, it is easy to want your children to be shielded from suffering. but life teaches you that this is not only selfish and foolish, but more importantly it deprives them of character building, life lessons, as well as an appreciation for the contrast between the two, either the joy of the sunlight after enduring the storm clouds, or simply appreciating the essence of life: the average moments.


obviously all of this if based on the short sighted mind of a human who has no frame of reference for the characteristics and experiences of a suffering free world, let alone the complex ethics and deliberation between different universe styles.


it doesn't mean we should not try, but it raises questions about the perspective and authority of the human mind, IMO
 
Upvote 0
AKAK;2012232; said:
You're drunk in Mexico, why would it have any ground.... right now.

Yo tuvo mucho tiempo para contemplacion en Mexico. Es verdad.

In seriousness, you actually bring up a good point about how personal, subjective viewpoints can play a huge role in the determination of benevolence and good/bad.
 
Upvote 0
Back
Top