OFFICIAL: Biblical/Theology Discussion thread

[muffler dragon]

So.. in the words of Eddie Izzard.... Fuck off. :)

BAMF! Awesome comedy!

 

[Jake]

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

Not at all. Just stop expecting baseless positions to be treated as serious arguments.

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 give baseless positions the respect they deserve, and I enjoy watching theists tie themselves in knots trying to rationalize their emotional beliefs.

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. :)

So if I put a smiley after "fuck off" can I direct it at other posters without consequence, too? :)

 

[Jake]

As long as we're having fun, here's a little comedy courtesy of the "word of God".

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ah5xFMYbP4s&NR=1&feature=fvwp"]The Story of Creation - YouTube[/ame]

 

[jwinslow]

I give baseless positions the respect they deserve, and I enjoy watching theists tie themselves in knots trying to rationalize their emotional beliefs. Cheap comedy never gets old.

If you keep repeating it, maybe people will stop noticing your non stop proselytizing and mistake you for a clever satirist instead. You sure have claimed it enough times.

If there's a BP poster that is more absorbed in partisan rhetoric, be it political or theological, or more aggressive in making others think the way he does, I haven't seen him (/her).

 

[kinch]

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

I believe the typical response is that an omnipotent god could make kids and adults know and have all of the experiences of all of the things you mentioned, including frames of references, without the suffering, unless of course he is not purely good or truly omnipotent.

I am not arguing for or against this btw, which I have tried to make clear in just describing the argument, as it is a classic philosophical one.

 

[Gatorubet]

As long as we're having fun, here's a little comedy courtesy of the "word of God".

The Story of Creation - YouTube

Will you at least get this one idea through your thick pate jake? - Not all professed Christians are Biblical literalists.

The depth and breadth of thought among Christians denominationally (let along individually) on most theological issues are vast and non-uniform.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Not at all. Just stop expecting baseless positions to be treated as serious arguments.

Oh, Jakie-poo... you have mistaken me for someone who would expect a damn thing from you.

I give baseless positions the respect they deserve, and I enjoy watching theists tie themselves in knots trying to rationalize their emotional beliefs.

Baseless positions.. get.. the respect they deserve... which is? Zero? Like I said?

I think if you're fair with yourself, Jakie-poo, you like provoking this alleged knot tying. For what it's worth, I enjoy calling you out on things like this, so I dig where you're coming from on that score.

So if I put a smiley after "fuck off" can I direct it at other posters without consequence, too? :)

I doubt it. Life aint fair.

 

[AKAK]

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.

I assure you, I had no intention of doing so.

 

[kinch]

I believe regarding benevolence or "all good," the general question is "is their suffering in the world?" If some want to get subjective about that, they may be arguing semantics. These words are ours, we made them. If some do not agree that a woman being raped with a knife, held captive while live insects crawled over her for 5 months, and being forced to listen to Kenny G on loop before being slowly killed with hot irons isn't suffering, and could be allowed by an all powerful, all knowing, all good being, then I think the terms at hand may escape them.



This is the problem with absolutes, which I think is really what many are getting at, perhaps? Then again, this would say god is not one of those three things, maybe. It would not, in my mind however, say that he does not exist. Maybe it is more that he had a plan, or an experiment even. After all, didn't he have to change our world because it didn't turn out as he wanted? You know, floods and all that.

I don't know. I'm just rambling. I really find the Ontological Argument for the existence of god more interesting to discuss, but I don't want to divert the discussion for now. :)

Edit: I should not have defined god as a "he," huh? Maybe it? S/he, he/she, she/he, rotating? What is the norm now? I think it is rotating for ambiguous writing other than god. . .

 

[muffler dragon]

I believe regarding benevolence or "all good," the general question is "is their suffering in the world?" If some want to get subjective about that, they may be arguing semantics. These words are ours, we made them. If some do not agree that a woman being raped with a knife, held captive while live insects crawled over her for 5 months, and being forced to listen to Kenny G on loop before being slowly killed with hot irons isn't suffering, and could be allowed by an all powerful, all knowing, all good being, then I think the terms at hand may escape them.

Then we deal with the argument of free will as well.

 

[MaxBuck]

I believe regarding benevolence or "all good," the general question is "is their suffering in the world?"

Hey. It's all good. Chill.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Kinch -

Those acts you described... they aren't good. They aren't bad. They're acts. Period. We agree, I think, that they sound horrible and would never wish any person to have to endure them. Especially the Kenny G part. But, our agreement doesn't make them "evil" They're still just acts. Or events. Whatever. There is no such thing as a good act. No such thing as a bad act. There are only acts.

I do like the fact that you point out that even if there is no such thing as an all good G-d that doesn't mean G-d doesn't exist. It just means he doesn't have that particular quality. I've found myself overlooking pointing out the same thing damn near every time this particular argument comes up.

 

[kinch]

Kinch -

Those acts you described... they aren't good. They aren't bad. They're acts. Period. We agree, I think, that they sound horrible and would never wish any person to have to endure them. Especially the Kenny G part. But, our agreement doesn't make them "evil" They're still just acts. Or events. Whatever. There is no such thing as a good act. No such thing as a bad act. There are only acts.

I do like the fact that you point out that even if there is no such thing as an all good G-d that doesn't mean G-d doesn't exist. It just means he doesn't have that particular quality. I've found myself overlooking pointing out the same thing damn near every time this particular argument comes up.

It is not about whether the acts were "evil." The triad of the qualities many ascribed to god only requires that suffering exists to show that the triad must not.

The very fact that he had to reboot the Earth shows that either he is not those three things, or, conversely, that the argument against his existence is flawed from the beginning.

I take the argument as one arguing against a certain version of god believed by a certain portion of believers, but not much more.

 

[kinch]

Okay, here is a random post.

I was in a bad way at one point not too long ago. I wandered the streets thinking. I ended up in a church, a Greek Orthodox one. Nobody there spoke English. Still, they could see I was sad and in a bad way.

They invited me in with signals of the hand. They gave me some biscuits and showed me the church. Each time, at each memorial, they waited as long as they thought I needed, and then took me to another. I assumed they thought I was a tourist or someone interested in the church academically. But when I left, this huge woman (sumo huge), got up with her cane and gave me a hug. She then said something in Greek and kissed my forehead.

I think I told Buckeyegrad (obviously) about some of this, but nobody else.

In the end, isn't this the point of religion? I was nearly converted.

 

[PlanetFrnd]

In the end, isn't this the point of religion?

For you, yes. The impact 'religion' has on each person is as unique as the way we hear, see, smell, touch and taste... it's never exactly the same for anyone.