• 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!

Talking Religion...

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
Brewtus;2142254; said:
But I don't understand how God or a Creator is a better explanation than "I don't know". Please explain how God "has stood up to inquiry and examination" when by its very nature God cannot be examined.
Click to expand...
Well, this gets back to how I view the universe. I cant fail to examine G-d, because there's nothing else to examine. Again, it goes back to a premise I hold to be true - if G-d is possible, he must exist. (Again, I realize that premise needs support, I just don't want to get into it here and now). I don't pretend that my way of looking at things is the best way... or even wise... but.. it does unify a deeper theoretical underpinning to the way I deal with life .. from the physical to the metaphysical. Again, however, that's hardly "proof" of anything. That's just a coping strategy, I suppose. In any event, personally, it's "proof" I don't suggest it's unassailable truth, however.

Mistaking the fact of the universe even existing and the extremely unlikely scenario that humans evolved as an explanation for God seems to me like the ultimate argument from ignorance. The occurrence of very rare events do not imply, by default, some sort of supernatural cause.
Click to expand...
Ironically, it is precisely this sort of "rare event" you were - at least in my understanding of your request - looking for.. extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If the "very rare" do not qualify as extraordinary, what else can I do? Try something that's extremely rare?

Hope that doesn't sound snippy. More irony - I don't believe in one universe. I believe in an infinite amount of them, existing in infinite times. Consequently, much like our own solar system is hardly noteworthy... this universe itself isn't rare at all.

And as I wrote previously, God and a Creator can be mutually exclusive beings. I'm not sure if you're arguing for just a Creator who has only had input into the initial creation of the universe but does not exist now or has given no further input, or a personal God that still interacts with the universe and provides for some kind of life after death for humans.
Click to expand...
I use G-d and Creator interchangeably. I don't disagree with your comment on mutual exclusivity, it's just not a path that necessarily "interests" me... though, perhaps the conclusions of such a examination would be quite revealing... In any case, the G-d I refer to is the universe and he is also not the universe. He need not interact with any universe...

The reason why he need not interact - and certainly wouldn't do something so rare as to completely defy the laws of nature - is because from G-d's perspective everything happens. The consequences of infinite universes existing in infinite times... There's no point in doing anything "special" in this universe... anything "special" that should occur would be better suited in some other universe at some other time, because THIS universe is what it is, not what it might also have been.

Don't know if that helps.
 
Upvote 0
Brewtus;2142166; said:
So are you claiming that personal revelation is a reliable way to determine what is true? If someone claims to know something with absolute certainty through personal experiences, should others accept that claim as being true just at face value? I don't doubt the sincerity or honesty of the individual making the personal claim, but shouldn't the criteria for accepting whether something is universally true or not depend on much more than personal experiences?
Click to expand...

I'm claiming personal experience--not personal revelation--is a reliable way to determine what is true--at least to a degree. After all, what else do we have but experience? Even your own criteria for assessing truth falls to relying on personal experiences. It just depends on what funnel(s) we are going to demand that those experiences be filtered through in order to understand what is. My primary disagreement with you is the funnel you want to shift all human experience through. It's too narrow and limiting.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Gatorubet;2142157; said:
Assuming most of this was long standing oral tradition, I would assume we're are talking more hermeneutic than exegesis
Click to expand...

Well, I would call it exegetical hermeneutics, but let's not split hairs. :tongue2:
However, I do reject the assumption of it being a "long standing oral tradition" due to the lack of historical evidence to support it--i.e. we possess no evidence, only theories, that the books as they now exist ever existed in other forms--especially separate stories as suggested by literary inventions like the documentary hypothesis . But anyway, that sidetracks us from the current discussion.

but either way, I guess where I am having difficulty is your (here I am assuming, so - ya know what that is worth) proposition that humans did not "fill in the gaps" in a manner that included the use of personal experiences and a relationship with a Higher Power, one that might have been felt to be spiritually fulfilling by the person contemplating those issues in a framework with which they were familiar?
Click to expand...
I see the assumption being made on your part...or at least the part of those who argue as such (e.g. higher critics) that a "fill in the gap" process is in play when constructing the texts. I see no direct evidence (i.e. the texts themselves) to suggest that the writer...or even the compiler if we go that direction...is trying to present a theological understanding of life's mysteries. Rather, it is a presentation of the experiences of a line of people and their interactions with God. Any assertion that the given chronologies are attempts to "fill in the gaps" of understanding would be a modern day assumption about the psychology of a people from which we are divorced by culture and several millennia.

I guess I fail to see how one can conclude that Genesis did not involve "individuals grappling with trying to understand the world around them, especially the physical..." I do not see that effort as inconsistent or inapposite to the experiences of men, or precluding the participation of individuals who have an experience with the divine from being involved in that process - the process of searching for explanations in a world containing many issues beyond their explanation and for which they had no understanding absent a supernatural construct.
Click to expand...
I conclude such because of the lack of evidence from the work itself. To assume it is there seems a projection of ourselves onto the text rather than allowing the text to speak on its own terms.

I think it would be presumptuous on our part to assume a lack of a relationship with the Divine when we look at how they answered those questions is all.
Click to expand...
I find it more presumptuous on our part to assume that these questions are being revealed in the texts of the Bible when they are not presented as such. Which is not to say that people back then didn't have such thoughts or engage in such endeavors, but there is no indication this is what the writers of the books of the Bible were after.
 
Upvote 0
Gatorubet;2142260; said:
Therein lies the problem. Every religious tradition contains sincere individuals of good faith who not only claim to have, but in fact have had rich and deeply held experiences with God, and who only know God through those experiences. And yet, they all fundamentally disagree with each other to lesser and greater extents on the nature and truth of God. Which is all to say, while a rich personal experience is in no way to be diminished or disregarded - the fact that many different people over many different eras and cultures claim validity for their own flavor truth tends to make that - experience - problematic when used as a claim for the validity of the existence of God - or of one's flavor God - or of a single God for that matter. I'm sure polytheists had similar experiences back in the day, but that richness of experience would not make their belief system any more valid to non-believers by virtue of that personal experience.
Click to expand...

In the context of what I am stating in this discussion, I'm not in disagreement with you. This whole line of discussion was to show the error in the assertion that a secularist stands upon a superior platform of truth discernment. Of course people's experiences vary. As do their interpretation of those experiences. Knowing my past, I think you are trying to advance this argument to the next step in a discussion on why I think truth as presented by the Judeo-Christian tradition is closest to be accurate, but I'm not going there right now--nor do I care to in this forum at this time.

It boils down to Faith. One has it, or one does not.
Click to expand...

I thought this is what I was saying. Just like a lawyer, they argue with you even when you are in agreement! :tongue2:
 
Upvote 0
buckeyegrad;2142286; said:
I see the assumption being made on your part...or at least the part of those who argue as such (e.g. higher critics) that a "fill in the gap" process is in play when constructing the texts. I see no direct evidence (i.e. the texts themselves) to suggest that the writer...or even the compiler if we go that direction...is trying to present a theological understanding of life's mysteries.
Click to expand...
Don't make me go all proto-Demiurge-ish on you and ask you to explain how that whole Nephilim business fits in a religious experience construct. :p
 
Upvote 0
buckhead63;2294236; said:
God sent his only son to die for our sins.
Click to expand...

The "anthropomorphism of G-d" is considered idolatrous to some.

We are all sinners.
Click to expand...

And at death, the penalty is paid regardless of intercessor/mediator/etc.

That is all you need to know.
Click to expand...

And for some, completely irrelevant.

God will come again-when? I will be prepared.
Click to expand...

I actually like a more pervasive deity.
 
Upvote 0
Bucky Katt;2294391; said:
I prefer a more perverse deity.
Click to expand...

Such as?

th
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top