Subject:
|
Re: The Brick Testament - More Teachings of Jesus
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 22 Oct 2006 04:21:57 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
4295 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
| |
That helps me understand where you’re coming from. But it also seems like
you could hardly expect anyone else to share that same view of Jesus or God
for any rational reasons. And maybe you don’t.
|
Well, let’s say that it “rings true” to me; I find the wisdom valid for my
life. Why? I don’t know the reason. But it does. Why do you believe what
you believe? Upon what rational basis do you (presumably) deny the
existence of God? How do you explain the existence of the universe? What
“revelation” leads you to that conclusion?
|
I’d venture to say that this is just about your favorite question, because
you return to it repeatedly!
|
Well, for me it’s the ultimate question. And I believe that the origin of the
universe is the ONLY PLACE where science and religion collide and become
indistinguishable from each other.
| |
The answers, of course, are many and various:
atheists don’t necessarily deny the existence of God; they just don’t
believe that he exists (which is very different). The average guy believes
most of what he believes because experience justifies that belief in a
verifiable, reliable way. And some belief is fear-driven (eg., “I believe in
God because I can’t stand the thought of a godless universe”) And the
current explanation of the existence of the universe is “we don’t know.”
Stephen Hawking is, I believe, working even now on a book on this subject,
but in the meantime it’s sufficient to accept that the “reason” behind the
universe (if such exists) is not known.
|
Science doesn’t just accept a “we don’t know.” Where is the hypothosis? Ah,
the origin of the universe isn’t testable and therefore unable to be
scrutinized by science, so where does that leave a scientist-- hiding behind an
ignorant shrug?
| |
| |
| |
But from an on-and-off reading of your posts to ot.debate, it seems as
though you fairly regularly make statements about Jesus and God that seem
to wholly depend on such a personal, unexplainable revelataion.
|
Eh, that is the nature of Religion, of faith. I seriously doubt that any
two believers of the same faith believe exactly the same things. It is how
peace-loving Muslims and butchering Islamo-fascists can pray to the same
Allah.
|
I think that you need to realize, though, that at that point you’re just
witnessing, and any personal revelation, no matter how profound, is just
hearsay except for the person who experienced it first-hand.
|
Except “revelation” isn’t as sexy as you make it out to be. I can get a
revelation from anywhere. One never really knows if it’s from God or not.
| |
But aside from the fact that Islamo-fascist is an artifical word with no
useful meaning (except as a tool of propoganda),
|
Not at all:
- Islamo: pertaining to Islam
- Facism: Authoritarian, or intolerant views or practices.
Seems to describe OBL’s homies pretty well....
| |
you are correct that
different people have different takes on religion. Pat Robertson and Jerry
Falwell profess faith in the same God that millions of non-insane Christians
worship, for example.
| |
You are comparing apples and orbs. There are no “facts” (verifiable by
science) in religion.
|
| |
| |
So I guess what I’m saying is, you won’t have much success in a debate (be
it about ethics or public policy) if you expect other people to take
seriously statements or arguments based on personal revelation.
|
I disagree. Arguments or ideas should be judged based on their merits, not
their origins.
|
I agree, but in that case, you kind of have to cede that your arguments are
necessarily pretty weak, since they often come down to “There are no “facts”
(verifiable by science) in religion.” That’s okay as a statement of
witnessing, but it has no merit as an argument.
|
But when we are talking about the origin of the universe, I don’t want any
“witnessing” from scientists or atheists, either.
| |
| |
| |
Again, how or what
Now, again, I could be reading you wrong, and maybe your intent is not to
change anyone else’s mind, or even logically defend your own positions.
Maybe your posts to ot.debate are simply to state your positions.
|
Of course. State your position and argue its merits. Change, retain, tweak
as needed. I participate in OT.debate for MY sake. If anyone finds the
discourse amusing, stimulating, engaging, whatever; great. It’s about
sharing ideas.
|
I think that both can be true. I know that I have been persuaded to change
my views on at least two big issues here in OT.debate, and I believe that
I’ve changed at least one person’s view on another. But for the most part I
participate in discussions here to refine my view and my ability to
articulate it.
| |
| |
Again, I know this may simply be a proposition you believe from personal
revelation, but I don’t know I can even make sense of this. Sure, there is
some ambiguity in The Law (hence the Talmud in Judaism), but it is very
clear in many regards. How exactly does Jesus correctly interpret it?
|
Of course you realize that volumes have been written on this topic...
|
But if you ask 1,000 self-professed Christians, somewhere around 1,000 of
them will claim to know Jesus’ interpretation, and close to 1,000 of them
will be different. How can the fate of one’s eternal soul be based upon such
a subjective and non-verifiable “truth?”
|
I don’t think it is.
| |
Or is a different “truth” “true”
for each person?
|
There is one Truth. We may never know it (insert blind men and elephant
analogy)
| |
| |
| |
If there’s one message the OT gives more clearly than anything else, it’s
FOLLOW THE LAW OR GOD WILL DESTROY YOU. For Jesus to come along after all
that and say “Hey, you know what? Don’t sweat The Law too much. God just
wants you to be nice to each other,” is just insane.
|
To you perhaps. I think it makes perfect sense. I brought the Law into the
world, and I can take it out! (apologizes to Bill Cosby)
|
Then the Law is arbitrary and capricious and of no inherent value unless we
have independent verification of its value (ie., verification other than
personal revelation and God’s say-so).
|
I’m not sure I follow you here, but I’d say that yes, laws should be subject to
rational scrutiny.
| |
| |
| |
| |
I think we are using different definitions of “immolate”. I was referring
to it specifically as a sacrifice to God, such as a burnt offering, not
just torching somebody.
|
Well, then you were using a different sense of immolate than Dave! who made
the comment you were replying to in the first place. Dave! was referencing
Leviticus 10:1-2 in which Yahweh himself kills Aaron’s two sons Nadab and
Abihu by shooting fire at them, burning them to death. Their crime?
Worshiping Yaweh incorrectly, seemingly as Dave! suggests, by using the
wrong incense.
|
Okay, a misunderstanding. I’ll take it up with Dave!
|
For the record, The Rev pegged it--thanks for finding the citation. And if
God roasts someone for picking the Sandalwood instead of the Patchouli, I’m
not sure he meets my definition of “absolute good.”
| |
Well, second-guessing God as a sort of Monday Morning Messiah is fine and
all, but it isn’t really a valid argument to the contrary.
|
I think that it is, and I think that it’s necessary. God isn’t just the guy
wearing the “boss” hat; he’s supposed to be The Supreme Being. If flaws can
be found in God’s word, then these must be addressed more definitively than
“our concept of God is ever-changing.” If the bible is God’s word, then it
is imperative that it be separated into literal fact and figurative
storytelling. And then we need to identify the authority by which this
distinction is made.
|
But what does “God’s word” mean? That the Bible is inerrant? I believe that
the Bible is a collection of writings over thousands of years which contextually
describe the relationship between the People of God and God.
| |
| |
“Perfection” is one of those terms that is really beyond definition and
relegated to abject subjectivism. “Art” is another of these terms. Trying
to wrap our minds around the concept of a Creator is as well. Even Jesus
resorted to using the analogy of “the Father”.
|
Well, let’s be fair: the character of Jesus in the books known
collectively as the NT referred to “the Father.” We don’t actually know
what, if anything, Jesus said about it.
|
I’m not catching your drift. Are you suggesting that Jesus’ referring to God as
“father” is merely attribution?
| |
But more fundamentally, if “perfection” really is a subjective concept, then
a perfect God can’t possibly be absolute. Unless you mean that “to our
finite mines, perfection is subjective even if it is clear and absolute to
God.” And in that case, it’s unjust for God to judge us on our choice
to/not-to worship a perfect God, since each of us will have a different take
on it.
|
That makes me wonder-- what are your thoughts/beliefs WRT the concept of
“conscience” Dave!?
JOHN
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: The Brick Testament - More Teachings of Jesus
|
| (...) If, by "ignorant," you mean "lacking knowledge," then the answer is yes. Science definitely accepts "we don't know," but it doesn't posit that as a final explanation, either. The correct framing is "we don't know/we think it's like this/here's (...) (18 years ago, 23-Oct-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: The Brick Testament - More Teachings of Jesus
|
| (...) I'd venture to say that this is just about your favorite question, because you return to it repeatedly! The answers, of course, are many and various: atheists don't necessarily deny the existence of God; they just don't believe that he exists (...) (18 years ago, 20-Oct-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
86 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
