Can you explain why you have faith in your religion? (1 Viewer)

[proninja]

. You inserted yourself into a conversation and then said you didn't want to be part of it.

Lol, I like that shtick.

It seems to me that it is a major shift to go from believing the bible is the inerrant word of God to thinking this is book of stories written by men. When you start throwing out parts of it, what is to say that any of it should be relied upon?

Tre, most theologians who defend inerrancy these days only pull out the inerrancy card when talking about the autographs, as defending an inerrant bible over thousands of years and multiple translations is a bit of a fool's errand. The problem is, we don't have any of the autographs, so it turns into a theoretical discussion. Frankly, I usually see inerrancy brought up by conservatives in political discussions far more than in any kind of academic theological discussion.

Your point is very valid though. If Christians are willing to believe in the god-became-man, lived a perfect life, died for our sins, ascended to heaven, and will come back to judge the living and the dead, then believing things like a global flood or a literal whale for Jonah shouldn't be much of a stretch.

 

[cstu]

In this example, you can follow it to the letter and still know they weren't talking about the world as you and I know it today rather as they knew it then.

A localized flood in the Mesopotamian valley doesn't make sense given the texts. Animals, including birds, were gathered into the ark.

Genesis 6:6-8 - The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled. 7 So the Lord said, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them.” 8 But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord.

Why would a bird or most of those animals... or even people for that matter.. need to be housed in such an ark for a year? They could just move to where the flood ain't.

Why is it so difficult for people (of faith!) to discount the notion that this is meant to be a literal global flood? God will wipe the face of the earth of the human race and the animals and birds because he regretted that he made them. Did he only regret making the people and animals who lived in the Mesopotamian valley?

I'm not singling you out, GB, it just frustrates me when some try to soften the edges of scripture so that it fits neatly into modern man's understanding.

How can an omnipotent god have regret?

 

[Psychopav]

. You inserted yourself into a conversation and then said you didn't want to be part of it.

Lol, I like that shtick.

It seems to me that it is a major shift to go from believing the bible is the inerrant word of God to thinking this is book of stories written by men. When you start throwing out parts of it, what is to say that any of it should be relied upon?

Allow me to insert myself and then back out again.

Inerrant does not mean it is scientifically correct. The bible can be (and is imo) inerrant in terms of faith and morals without being inerrant in terms of scientific fact. History and science were not recorded and facts were not cataloged the way we do now until very recently.

 

[KCitons]

. You inserted yourself into a conversation and then said you didn't want to be part of it.

Lol, I like that shtick.

It seems to me that it is a major shift to go from believing the bible is the inerrant word of God to thinking this is book of stories written by men. When you start throwing out parts of it, what is to say that any of it should be relied upon?

Allow me to insert myself and then back out again.

Inerrant does not mean it is scientifically correct. The bible can be (and is imo) inerrant in terms of faith and morals without being inerrant in terms of scientific fact. History and science were not recorded and facts were not cataloged the way we do now until very recently.

At least buy us dinner.

 

[Jayrok]

In this example, you can follow it to the letter and still know they weren't talking about the world as you and I know it today rather as they knew it then.

A localized flood in the Mesopotamian valley doesn't make sense given the texts. Animals, including birds, were gathered into the ark.

Genesis 6:6-8 - The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled. 7 So the Lord said, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them.” 8 But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord.

Why would a bird or most of those animals... or even people for that matter.. need to be housed in such an ark for a year? They could just move to where the flood ain't.

Why is it so difficult for people (of faith!) to discount the notion that this is meant to be a literal global flood? God will wipe the face of the earth of the human race and the animals and birds because he regretted that he made them. Did he only regret making the people and animals who lived in the Mesopotamian valley?

I'm not singling you out, GB, it just frustrates me when some try to soften the edges of scripture so that it fits neatly into modern man's understanding.

How can an omnipotent god have regret?

Genesis 11:5-7 -- 5 But the Lord came down to see the city and the tower the people were building. 6 The Lord said, “If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. 7 Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other.”

How can an omnipotent God make such a statement as this?

 

[Henry Ford]

. You inserted yourself into a conversation and then said you didn't want to be part of it.

Lol, I like that shtick.

It seems to me that it is a major shift to go from believing the bible is the inerrant word of God to thinking this is book of stories written by men. When you start throwing out parts of it, what is to say that any of it should be relied upon?

Allow me to insert myself and then back out again.

Inerrant does not mean it is scientifically correct. The bible can be (and is imo) inerrant in terms of faith and morals without being inerrant in terms of scientific fact. History and science were not recorded and facts were not cataloged the way we do now until very recently.

If it's full of scientific errors because people didn't understand, why assume it's not full of moral errors because people didn't understand?

 

[The Commish]

It really has nothing to do with the inerrancy/errancy though. It's the perspective and circumstances under which these accounts were written, and it goes for every single account whether literal or fable. Folks rarely take the time to study the time in which these stories were told/recorded. Granted, I find people today who believe it is a literal story to be off, but I doubt it's for the same reasons that you do.

It really does, though. If it's the literal, unerring word of God, then there's a reason to follow the wording and statements of the Bible to the letter. If it's not, then it's a document to be interpreted in varying ways based on the understanding of the time and how our understanding has progressed. It's got some mistakes in it. It's limited by man's flawed understanding of the world.

In this example, you can follow it to the letter and still know they weren't talking about the world as you and I know it today rather as they knew it then. I don't want to get into an errancy debate in this thread...that misses the point of it IMO.

But, then they are talking about it. God isn't. That's my point. And what they said is incredibly suspect.

And if you don't want to get into a debate about it, then don't. You inserted yourself into a conversation and then said you didn't want to be part of it.

Ok...bowing out.

 

[Henry Ford]

. You inserted yourself into a conversation and then said you didn't want to be part of it.

Lol, I like that shtick.

It seems to me that it is a major shift to go from believing the bible is the inerrant word of God to thinking this is book of stories written by men. When you start throwing out parts of it, what is to say that any of it should be relied upon?

Exactly. If what's being said is "this is the spirit of the religion, and we should still think things through because this isn't the unerring word of God" then great. Sounds like a reasonable way to spend your Sundays and discuss a philosophical and religious system that has some great background and some very solid principles. Use it to create your personal relationship with God.

If the Bible is to be used as dogma, unchanging "God's word on a page" and used as the basis for specific determinations of what is and what is not acceptable ("We don't work on the Sunday because the Bible says so" or "homosexuality is wrong because the Bible says so" or "women can't be priests because the Bible says so") then there's a problem if anything at all is wrong.

Again, none of this contradicts the existence of God, or Jesus, or whether or not Jesus is the literal Son of God, or the Holy Spirit, or anything else. It does contradict a lot of religion, and the fact that these questions can't be reconciled is one of the reasons I don't understand a lot of people who have faith in most religion.

 

[TPW]

http://pjmedia.com/richardfernandez/2014/03/24/obrien-versus-holmes/?show-at-comment=576724#comment-576724

How can the finite comprehend the infinite, or man his creator?

If the universe began via "big bang" of an insolent single atom, and man as sludge in a pool of chemicals, our insignificance is obvious. These theories lead but to nihilism, and ultimately, the death of man. If the whole thing goes round and round, big bang and then contraction, perhaps into a black hole (as I originally heard the theory back in college), and then bang again, without design nor creator, then life is meaningless. Whether I bless you or kill you, care for orphans or do dastardly things to young virgins, matters not. It all ends up the same; even if there's a consequence of either earthly punishment or the personal anguish of sin, life is short, and it all just "goes away".

The concept of a creator and intelligent design far better fits what I have observed about the world, life and death, entropy, and of good and evil. I believe I have good historical reasons for believing in a Creator as revealed by God Himself in the Bible, written by men inspired by God's spirit, and for God's plan of Salvation from the sinful condition all mankind shares. DNA inspires that believe. The second law of Thermodynamics inspires it. Observing man in his hopeful glory, but usually finding him wallowing in his corruption, inspires my understanding of God and His creation. God along gives meaning to it all, to the universe, my place in it, and my surety of existence into eternity.

Yes, if God Created me, I have no answer for "who created God", or God's own universe of existence. How can any finite, linear being such as man understand infinity? However, we can understand design. We can comprehend revelation. We all had at one point, a common knowledge of basic good and evil (though some psychopaths have successfully suppressed it). I can live with my ignorance. I'm also comfortable that no one will ever discover Jesus Christ's body in a tomb, nor discover a secret 6,000 year old I-Pad left by spacemen with designs labeled "EARTH 1, HUMAN DESIGN" in some obscure alien language.

These scientific discoveries bring me closer to God; not sure how the atheists deal with infinity.

 

[Henry Ford]

http://pjmedia.com/richardfernandez/2014/03/24/obrien-versus-holmes/?show-at-comment=576724#comment-576724

How can the finite comprehend the infinite, or man his creator?

If the universe began via "big bang" of an insolent single atom, and man as sludge in a pool of chemicals, our insignificance is obvious. These theories lead but to nihilism, and ultimately, the death of man. If the whole thing goes round and round, big bang and then contraction, perhaps into a black hole (as I originally heard the theory back in college), and then bang again, without design nor creator, then life is meaningless. Whether I bless you or kill you, care for orphans or do dastardly things to young virgins, matters not. It all ends up the same; even if there's a consequence of either earthly punishment or the personal anguish of sin, life is short, and it all just "goes away".

The concept of a creator and intelligent design far better fits what I have observed about the world, life and death, entropy, and of good and evil. I believe I have good historical reasons for believing in a Creator as revealed by God Himself in the Bible, written by men inspired by God's spirit, and for God's plan of Salvation from the sinful condition all mankind shares. DNA inspires that believe. The second law of Thermodynamics inspires it. Observing man in his hopeful glory, but usually finding him wallowing in his corruption, inspires my understanding of God and His creation. God along gives meaning to it all, to the universe, my place in it, and my surety of existence into eternity.

Yes, if God Created me, I have no answer for "who created God", or God's own universe of existence. How can any finite, linear being such as man understand infinity? However, we can understand design. We can comprehend revelation. We all had at one point, a common knowledge of basic good and evil (though some psychopaths have successfully suppressed it). I can live with my ignorance. I'm also comfortable that no one will ever discover Jesus Christ's body in a tomb, nor discover a secret 6,000 year old I-Pad left by spacemen with designs labeled "EARTH 1, HUMAN DESIGN" in some obscure alien language.

These scientific discoveries bring me closer to God; not sure how the atheists deal with infinity.

I will say that if you can't think of a reason to not commit horrible acts other than the fear of burning in eternal hellfire, I hope you continue to be religious for all of your days.

 

[TPW]

http://pjmedia.com/richardfernandez/2014/03/24/obrien-versus-holmes/?show-at-comment=576724#comment-576724

How can the finite comprehend the infinite, or man his creator?

If the universe began via "big bang" of an insolent single atom, and man as sludge in a pool of chemicals, our insignificance is obvious. These theories lead but to nihilism, and ultimately, the death of man. If the whole thing goes round and round, big bang and then contraction, perhaps into a black hole (as I originally heard the theory back in college), and then bang again, without design nor creator, then life is meaningless. Whether I bless you or kill you, care for orphans or do dastardly things to young virgins, matters not. It all ends up the same; even if there's a consequence of either earthly punishment or the personal anguish of sin, life is short, and it all just "goes away".

The concept of a creator and intelligent design far better fits what I have observed about the world, life and death, entropy, and of good and evil. I believe I have good historical reasons for believing in a Creator as revealed by God Himself in the Bible, written by men inspired by God's spirit, and for God's plan of Salvation from the sinful condition all mankind shares. DNA inspires that believe. The second law of Thermodynamics inspires it. Observing man in his hopeful glory, but usually finding him wallowing in his corruption, inspires my understanding of God and His creation. God along gives meaning to it all, to the universe, my place in it, and my surety of existence into eternity.

Yes, if God Created me, I have no answer for "who created God", or God's own universe of existence. How can any finite, linear being such as man understand infinity? However, we can understand design. We can comprehend revelation. We all had at one point, a common knowledge of basic good and evil (though some psychopaths have successfully suppressed it). I can live with my ignorance. I'm also comfortable that no one will ever discover Jesus Christ's body in a tomb, nor discover a secret 6,000 year old I-Pad left by spacemen with designs labeled "EARTH 1, HUMAN DESIGN" in some obscure alien language.

These scientific discoveries bring me closer to God; not sure how the atheists deal with infinity.

I will say that if you can't think of a reason to not commit horrible acts other than the fear of burning in eternal hellfire, I hope you continue to be religious for all of your days.

I'd like to hear your explanation for the same short of raw utilitarianism. Who defines your code?

 

[Henry Ford]

http://pjmedia.com/richardfernandez/2014/03/24/obrien-versus-holmes/?show-at-comment=576724#comment-576724

How can the finite comprehend the infinite, or man his creator?

If the universe began via "big bang" of an insolent single atom, and man as sludge in a pool of chemicals, our insignificance is obvious. These theories lead but to nihilism, and ultimately, the death of man. If the whole thing goes round and round, big bang and then contraction, perhaps into a black hole (as I originally heard the theory back in college), and then bang again, without design nor creator, then life is meaningless. Whether I bless you or kill you, care for orphans or do dastardly things to young virgins, matters not. It all ends up the same; even if there's a consequence of either earthly punishment or the personal anguish of sin, life is short, and it all just "goes away".

The concept of a creator and intelligent design far better fits what I have observed about the world, life and death, entropy, and of good and evil. I believe I have good historical reasons for believing in a Creator as revealed by God Himself in the Bible, written by men inspired by God's spirit, and for God's plan of Salvation from the sinful condition all mankind shares. DNA inspires that believe. The second law of Thermodynamics inspires it. Observing man in his hopeful glory, but usually finding him wallowing in his corruption, inspires my understanding of God and His creation. God along gives meaning to it all, to the universe, my place in it, and my surety of existence into eternity.

Yes, if God Created me, I have no answer for "who created God", or God's own universe of existence. How can any finite, linear being such as man understand infinity? However, we can understand design. We can comprehend revelation. We all had at one point, a common knowledge of basic good and evil (though some psychopaths have successfully suppressed it). I can live with my ignorance. I'm also comfortable that no one will ever discover Jesus Christ's body in a tomb, nor discover a secret 6,000 year old I-Pad left by spacemen with designs labeled "EARTH 1, HUMAN DESIGN" in some obscure alien language.

These scientific discoveries bring me closer to God; not sure how the atheists deal with infinity.

I will say that if you can't think of a reason to not commit horrible acts other than the fear of burning in eternal hellfire, I hope you continue to be religious for all of your days.

I'd like to hear your explanation for the same short of raw utilitarianism. Who defines your code?

Skipping all the inevitable back and forth about "discovering" morality versus "creating" morality and such from a deontological perspective... I do.

But to be fair, so do you. You just choose to define yours using some of the ideas in a thousands-of-years-old book.

 

[proninja]

Oh come on. Even though you have shared these stories before, I still find it hard to take seriously.

Call me a clown for not buying it, or you seriously need to go talk to someone.

Bud, I don't engage you often in these threads, but every time you trot out the "I'm just not sugarcoating it and you can't handle the truth" nonsense the rest of us think back to posts like this and shake out heads.

 

[caabeel]

http://pjmedia.com/richardfernandez/2014/03/24/obrien-versus-holmes/?show-at-comment=576724#comment-576724

How can the finite comprehend the infinite, or man his creator?

If the universe began via "big bang" of an insolent single atom, and man as sludge in a pool of chemicals, our insignificance is obvious. These theories lead but to nihilism, and ultimately, the death of man. If the whole thing goes round and round, big bang and then contraction, perhaps into a black hole (as I originally heard the theory back in college), and then bang again, without design nor creator, then life is meaningless. Whether I bless you or kill you, care for orphans or do dastardly things to young virgins, matters not. It all ends up the same; even if there's a consequence of either earthly punishment or the personal anguish of sin, life is short, and it all just "goes away".

The concept of a creator and intelligent design far better fits what I have observed about the world, life and death, entropy, and of good and evil. I believe I have good historical reasons for believing in a Creator as revealed by God Himself in the Bible, written by men inspired by God's spirit, and for God's plan of Salvation from the sinful condition all mankind shares. DNA inspires that believe. The second law of Thermodynamics inspires it. Observing man in his hopeful glory, but usually finding him wallowing in his corruption, inspires my understanding of God and His creation. God along gives meaning to it all, to the universe, my place in it, and my surety of existence into eternity.

Yes, if God Created me, I have no answer for "who created God", or God's own universe of existence. How can any finite, linear being such as man understand infinity? However, we can understand design. We can comprehend revelation. We all had at one point, a common knowledge of basic good and evil (though some psychopaths have successfully suppressed it). I can live with my ignorance. I'm also comfortable that no one will ever discover Jesus Christ's body in a tomb, nor discover a secret 6,000 year old I-Pad left by spacemen with designs labeled "EARTH 1, HUMAN DESIGN" in some obscure alien language.

These scientific discoveries bring me closer to God; not sure how the atheists deal with infinity.

I will say that if you can't think of a reason to not commit horrible acts other than the fear of burning in eternal hellfire, I hope you continue to be religious for all of your days.

Eternal hellfire....not a Bible teaching....

 

[Henry Ford]

Eternal hellfire....not a Bible teaching....

But a religious one.

And, yes, it is a Bible teaching, just not necessarily for humans.

 

[TPW]

http://pjmedia.com/richardfernandez/2014/03/24/obrien-versus-holmes/?show-at-comment=576724#comment-576724

How can the finite comprehend the infinite, or man his creator?

If the universe began via "big bang" of an insolent single atom, and man as sludge in a pool of chemicals, our insignificance is obvious. These theories lead but to nihilism, and ultimately, the death of man. If the whole thing goes round and round, big bang and then contraction, perhaps into a black hole (as I originally heard the theory back in college), and then bang again, without design nor creator, then life is meaningless. Whether I bless you or kill you, care for orphans or do dastardly things to young virgins, matters not. It all ends up the same; even if there's a consequence of either earthly punishment or the personal anguish of sin, life is short, and it all just "goes away".

The concept of a creator and intelligent design far better fits what I have observed about the world, life and death, entropy, and of good and evil. I believe I have good historical reasons for believing in a Creator as revealed by God Himself in the Bible, written by men inspired by God's spirit, and for God's plan of Salvation from the sinful condition all mankind shares. DNA inspires that believe. The second law of Thermodynamics inspires it. Observing man in his hopeful glory, but usually finding him wallowing in his corruption, inspires my understanding of God and His creation. God along gives meaning to it all, to the universe, my place in it, and my surety of existence into eternity.

Yes, if God Created me, I have no answer for "who created God", or God's own universe of existence. How can any finite, linear being such as man understand infinity? However, we can understand design. We can comprehend revelation. We all had at one point, a common knowledge of basic good and evil (though some psychopaths have successfully suppressed it). I can live with my ignorance. I'm also comfortable that no one will ever discover Jesus Christ's body in a tomb, nor discover a secret 6,000 year old I-Pad left by spacemen with designs labeled "EARTH 1, HUMAN DESIGN" in some obscure alien language.

These scientific discoveries bring me closer to God; not sure how the atheists deal with infinity.

I will say that if you can't think of a reason to not commit horrible acts other than the fear of burning in eternal hellfire, I hope you continue to be religious for all of your days.

I'd like to hear your explanation for the same short of raw utilitarianism. Who defines your code?

Skipping all the inevitable back and forth about "discovering" morality versus "creating" morality and such from a deontological perspective... I do.

But to be fair, so do you. You just choose to define yours using some of the ideas in a thousands-of-years-old book.

So by your definition then we're ultimately all just in this thing called life for ourselves. While those like you claim to be humanitarians who don't need a "thousands-of-years-old book" to prevent you from offing your neighbors, I've never heard any of you offer a convincing explanation as to why that can't change on any given day. By your own words, you are the sole creator and arbiter of your code.

My faith warns of consequences for evil deeds. Your "code" can't even began to define the nature of what evil is because it's constantly in flux depending on your own whims. The only things which hold people like you in check are the fear of retribution from others or the belief that the proper course is the one which maximizes utility. Either way, there's nothing new, erudite, or enlightened about such a primal and base manner of thinking and living.

 

[Henry Ford]

http://pjmedia.com/richardfernandez/2014/03/24/obrien-versus-holmes/?show-at-comment=576724#comment-576724

How can the finite comprehend the infinite, or man his creator?

If the universe began via "big bang" of an insolent single atom, and man as sludge in a pool of chemicals, our insignificance is obvious. These theories lead but to nihilism, and ultimately, the death of man. If the whole thing goes round and round, big bang and then contraction, perhaps into a black hole (as I originally heard the theory back in college), and then bang again, without design nor creator, then life is meaningless. Whether I bless you or kill you, care for orphans or do dastardly things to young virgins, matters not. It all ends up the same; even if there's a consequence of either earthly punishment or the personal anguish of sin, life is short, and it all just "goes away".

The concept of a creator and intelligent design far better fits what I have observed about the world, life and death, entropy, and of good and evil. I believe I have good historical reasons for believing in a Creator as revealed by God Himself in the Bible, written by men inspired by God's spirit, and for God's plan of Salvation from the sinful condition all mankind shares. DNA inspires that believe. The second law of Thermodynamics inspires it. Observing man in his hopeful glory, but usually finding him wallowing in his corruption, inspires my understanding of God and His creation. God along gives meaning to it all, to the universe, my place in it, and my surety of existence into eternity.

Yes, if God Created me, I have no answer for "who created God", or God's own universe of existence. How can any finite, linear being such as man understand infinity? However, we can understand design. We can comprehend revelation. We all had at one point, a common knowledge of basic good and evil (though some psychopaths have successfully suppressed it). I can live with my ignorance. I'm also comfortable that no one will ever discover Jesus Christ's body in a tomb, nor discover a secret 6,000 year old I-Pad left by spacemen with designs labeled "EARTH 1, HUMAN DESIGN" in some obscure alien language.

These scientific discoveries bring me closer to God; not sure how the atheists deal with infinity.

I will say that if you can't think of a reason to not commit horrible acts other than the fear of burning in eternal hellfire, I hope you continue to be religious for all of your days.

I'd like to hear your explanation for the same short of raw utilitarianism. Who defines your code?

Skipping all the inevitable back and forth about "discovering" morality versus "creating" morality and such from a deontological perspective... I do.

But to be fair, so do you. You just choose to define yours using some of the ideas in a thousands-of-years-old book.

So by your definition then we're ultimately all just in this thing called life for ourselves. While those like you claim to be humanitarians who don't need a "thousands-of-years-old book" to prevent you from offing your neighbors, I've never heard any of you offer a convincing explanation as to why that can't change on any given day. By your own words, you are the sole creator and arbiter of your code.

My faith warns of consequences for evil deeds. Your "code" can't even began to define the nature of what evil is because it's constantly in flux depending on your own whims. The only things which hold people like you in check are the fear of retribution from others or the belief that the proper course is the one which maximizes utility. Either way, there's nothing new, erudite, or enlightened about such a primal and base manner of thinking and living.

That's simply not true. I know the idea of infusing meaning into life from within us is something you don't identify with. I get that. But it doesn't mean no one gets it. I understand that you have a God who you believe infuses your life with meaning, and I don't begrudge you that. I also don't understand how someone could think that his life could be given meaning from an external source. But you don't see me calling you primal or base.

The thing that keeps me in check is that I believe in the basic goodness of people - not because of fear of retribution from an angry God, or a lifetime after this one that will be filled with wonder if I do a good thing. I have people I care about, and love, and know that everyone on some level has someone or something that he or she loves. I have empathy for my fellow human beings.

In fact, I'm definitely not just in it for myself. I'm in it for humanity. And those of us, over the next however-many-generations-we-last who actually live here on this planet. There is dignity, meaning, and love right here that deserves to be nurtured and supported. And ideas like justice, reason, love, respect, community and all the other wonderful things you believe in other than God - I believe in them, too. I just don't require an old book to tell me about them. Neither do you. Which is why you don't follow every single bit of that old book every minute of every day. These things exist in nature - far beyond just humanity. Apes, monkeys, dogs, cats, frogs, otters, virtually every living thing exhibits an understanding of these concepts.

The fact that it wasn't given to us by a God doesn't mean it's constantly changing or there isn't a right answer.

 

[TPW]

http://pjmedia.com/richardfernandez/2014/03/24/obrien-versus-holmes/?show-at-comment=576724#comment-576724

How can the finite comprehend the infinite, or man his creator?

If the universe began via "big bang" of an insolent single atom, and man as sludge in a pool of chemicals, our insignificance is obvious. These theories lead but to nihilism, and ultimately, the death of man. If the whole thing goes round and round, big bang and then contraction, perhaps into a black hole (as I originally heard the theory back in college), and then bang again, without design nor creator, then life is meaningless. Whether I bless you or kill you, care for orphans or do dastardly things to young virgins, matters not. It all ends up the same; even if there's a consequence of either earthly punishment or the personal anguish of sin, life is short, and it all just "goes away".

The concept of a creator and intelligent design far better fits what I have observed about the world, life and death, entropy, and of good and evil. I believe I have good historical reasons for believing in a Creator as revealed by God Himself in the Bible, written by men inspired by God's spirit, and for God's plan of Salvation from the sinful condition all mankind shares. DNA inspires that believe. The second law of Thermodynamics inspires it. Observing man in his hopeful glory, but usually finding him wallowing in his corruption, inspires my understanding of God and His creation. God along gives meaning to it all, to the universe, my place in it, and my surety of existence into eternity.

Yes, if God Created me, I have no answer for "who created God", or God's own universe of existence. How can any finite, linear being such as man understand infinity? However, we can understand design. We can comprehend revelation. We all had at one point, a common knowledge of basic good and evil (though some psychopaths have successfully suppressed it). I can live with my ignorance. I'm also comfortable that no one will ever discover Jesus Christ's body in a tomb, nor discover a secret 6,000 year old I-Pad left by spacemen with designs labeled "EARTH 1, HUMAN DESIGN" in some obscure alien language.

These scientific discoveries bring me closer to God; not sure how the atheists deal with infinity.

I will say that if you can't think of a reason to not commit horrible acts other than the fear of burning in eternal hellfire, I hope you continue to be religious for all of your days.

I'd like to hear your explanation for the same short of raw utilitarianism. Who defines your code?

Skipping all the inevitable back and forth about "discovering" morality versus "creating" morality and such from a deontological perspective... I do.

But to be fair, so do you. You just choose to define yours using some of the ideas in a thousands-of-years-old book.

So by your definition then we're ultimately all just in this thing called life for ourselves. While those like you claim to be humanitarians who don't need a "thousands-of-years-old book" to prevent you from offing your neighbors, I've never heard any of you offer a convincing explanation as to why that can't change on any given day. By your own words, you are the sole creator and arbiter of your code.

My faith warns of consequences for evil deeds. Your "code" can't even began to define the nature of what evil is because it's constantly in flux depending on your own whims. The only things which hold people like you in check are the fear of retribution from others or the belief that the proper course is the one which maximizes utility. Either way, there's nothing new, erudite, or enlightened about such a primal and base manner of thinking and living.

That's simply not true. I know the idea of infusing meaning into life from within us is something you don't identify with. I get that. But it doesn't mean no one gets it. I understand that you have a God who you believe infuses your life with meaning, and I don't begrudge you that. I also don't understand how someone could think that his life could be given meaning from an external source. But you don't see me calling you primal or base.

The thing that keeps me in check is that I believe in the basic goodness of people - not because of fear of retribution from an angry God, or a lifetime after this one that will be filled with wonder if I do a good thing. I have people I care about, and love, and know that everyone on some level has someone or something that he or she loves. I have empathy for my fellow human beings.

In fact, I'm definitely not just in it for myself. I'm in it for humanity. And those of us, over the next however-many-generations-we-last who actually live here on this planet. There is dignity, meaning, and love right here that deserves to be nurtured and supported. And ideas like justice, reason, love, respect, community and all the other wonderful things you believe in other than God - I believe in them, too. I just don't require an old book to tell me about them. Neither do you. Which is why you don't follow every single bit of that old book every minute of every day. These things exist in nature - far beyond just humanity. Apes, monkeys, dogs, cats, frogs, otters, virtually every living thing exhibits an understanding of these concepts.

The fact that it wasn't given to us by a God doesn't mean it's constantly changing or there isn't a right answer.

Please define "goodness." While you're at it, please tells us why your definition of "goodness" is any more valid than someone else's which might happen to be very much different? In your world, who gets to say which is right or wrong or define which person has a greater amount of empathy?

 

[The Commish]

Oh come on. Even though you have shared these stories before, I still find it hard to take seriously.

Call me a clown for not buying it, or you seriously need to go talk to someone.

Bud, I don't engage you often in these threads, but every time you trot out the "I'm just not sugarcoating it and you can't handle the truth" nonsense the rest of us think back to posts like this and shake out heads.

/stalker

 

[Henry Ford]

Please define "goodness." While you're at it, please tells us why your definition of "goodness" is any more valid than someone else's which might happen to be very much different? In your world, who gets to say which is right or wrong or define which person has a greater amount of empathy?

Eudaimonia.

I'll be happy to help you out with the rest of your question if you just show me who you're talking about who has a different definition of goodness than I do. Or you can tell me yours, if you want.

 

[TPW]

Please define "goodness." While you're at it, please tells us why your definition of "goodness" is any more valid than someone else's which might happen to be very much different? In your world, who gets to say which is right or wrong or define which person has a greater amount of empathy?

Eudaimonia.

I'll be happy to help you out with the rest of your question if you just show me who you're talking about who has a different definition of goodness than I do. Or you can tell me yours, if you want.

My definition of goodness is readily defined for me by Jesus Christ, the prophets who preceded him, and all the saints and apostles which followed. Yours is apparently some ethereal notion and undefinable innate character of mankind despite thousands of years of evidence to the contrary. Who exactly is the one taking things on faith here?

 

[Henry Ford]

Please define "goodness." While you're at it, please tells us why your definition of "goodness" is any more valid than someone else's which might happen to be very much different? In your world, who gets to say which is right or wrong or define which person has a greater amount of empathy?

Eudaimonia.

I'll be happy to help you out with the rest of your question if you just show me who you're talking about who has a different definition of goodness than I do. Or you can tell me yours, if you want.

My definition of goodness is readily defined for me by Jesus Christ, the prophets who preceded him, and all the saints and apostles which followed. Yours is apparently some ethereal notion and undefinable innate character of mankind despite thousands of years of evidence to the contrary. Who exactly is the one taking things on faith here?

Okay. What is it?

And, no it's not "undefinable." I actually just used a word to define it. "Human flourishing characterized by excellence and ethical wisdom" is a pretty good definition.

 

[TPW]

Read the Bible.

 

[Notorious T.R.E.]

Read the Bible.

You're not coming across very well here, fyi.

 

[Henry Ford]

Read the Bible.

I have. More than once, cover to cover. I've even given sermons from it in a Christian Church.

I have given you my definition. You've asked me how to choose between mine and a very different one. You haven't provided me with a very different definition of good, so I can't answer your question.

 

[Notorious T.R.E.]

Without religion to guide us I believe we would still have a society or community that would work for the benefit of one another. We wouldn't all of the sudden get all murderous and rapey or something.

It would be much like it is today without some of the gay hating and maybe more cheeseburgers on Fridays or something.

 

[timschochet]

The problem with the argument that the Bible is a source of morality is that so much of it seems downright immoral.

 

[BroadwayG]

The problem with the argument that the Bible is a source of morality is that so much of it seems downright immoral.

Come on, what's wrong with two sisters taking turns getting pregnant from their passed out drunk father after their mom gets turned into salt?

 

[proninja]

Read the Bible.

You're not coming across very well here, fyi.

Agree. You're dismissing anything he could possibly think before you're willing to hear him out, and when you get backed into the logical corner that inevitably comes when you try to defend a very difficult position from a smart, well educated attorney, you say "read the bible" and peace out of the conversation.

I realize it's difficult to engage hard questions, but you're not doing yourself any favors here. If there are difficult questions above your pay grade, it's probably best to leave them to other people.

 

[cstu]

In this example, you can follow it to the letter and still know they weren't talking about the world as you and I know it today rather as they knew it then.

A localized flood in the Mesopotamian valley doesn't make sense given the texts. Animals, including birds, were gathered into the ark.

Genesis 6:6-8 - The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled. 7 So the Lord said, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them.” 8 But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord.

Why would a bird or most of those animals... or even people for that matter.. need to be housed in such an ark for a year? They could just move to where the flood ain't.

Why is it so difficult for people (of faith!) to discount the notion that this is meant to be a literal global flood? God will wipe the face of the earth of the human race and the animals and birds because he regretted that he made them. Did he only regret making the people and animals who lived in the Mesopotamian valley?

I'm not singling you out, GB, it just frustrates me when some try to soften the edges of scripture so that it fits neatly into modern man's understanding.

How can an omnipotent god have regret?

Genesis 11:5-7 -- 5 But the Lord came down to see the city and the tower the people were building. 6 The Lord said, “If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. 7 Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other.”

How can an omnipotent God make such a statement as this?

He must have been terrified of people building a brick tower to heaven.

And they said one to another, Go to, let us make brick, and burn them thoroughly. And they had brick for stone, and slime had they for morter.

4 And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.

 

[Bruce Dickinson]

Please define "goodness." While you're at it, please tells us why your definition of "goodness" is any more valid than someone else's which might happen to be very much different? In your world, who gets to say which is right or wrong or define which person has a greater amount of empathy?

Eudaimonia.

I'll be happy to help you out with the rest of your question if you just show me who you're talking about who has a different definition of goodness than I do. Or you can tell me yours, if you want.

My definition of goodness is readily defined for me by Jesus Christ, the prophets who preceded him, and all the saints and apostles which followed. Yours is apparently some ethereal notion and undefinable innate character of mankind despite thousands of years of evidence to the contrary. Who exactly is the one taking things on faith here?

Okay. What is it?And, no it's not "undefinable." I actually just used a word to define it. "Human flourishing characterized by excellence and ethical wisdom" is a pretty good definition.

Yeah. Suck on it, TPW. And don't come back until you get your morality from a book that is at least 2300 years old.

 

[Psychopav]

. You inserted yourself into a conversation and then said you didn't want to be part of it.

Lol, I like that shtick.

It seems to me that it is a major shift to go from believing the bible is the inerrant word of God to thinking this is book of stories written by men. When you start throwing out parts of it, what is to say that any of it should be relied upon?

Allow me to insert myself and then back out again.

Inerrant does not mean it is scientifically correct. The bible can be (and is imo) inerrant in terms of faith and morals without being inerrant in terms of scientific fact. History and science were not recorded and facts were not cataloged the way we do now until very recently.

If it's full of scientific errors because people didn't understand, why assume it's not full of moral errors because people didn't understand?

What does scientific progress have to do with moral law?

 

[Henry Ford]

Please define "goodness." While you're at it, please tells us why your definition of "goodness" is any more valid than someone else's which might happen to be very much different? In your world, who gets to say which is right or wrong or define which person has a greater amount of empathy?

Eudaimonia.

I'll be happy to help you out with the rest of your question if you just show me who you're talking about who has a different definition of goodness than I do. Or you can tell me yours, if you want.

My definition of goodness is readily defined for me by Jesus Christ, the prophets who preceded him, and all the saints and apostles which followed. Yours is apparently some ethereal notion and undefinable innate character of mankind despite thousands of years of evidence to the contrary. Who exactly is the one taking things on faith here?

Okay. What is it?And, no it's not "undefinable." I actually just used a word to define it. "Human flourishing characterized by excellence and ethical wisdom" is a pretty good definition.

Yeah. Suck on it, TPW. And don't come back until you get your morality from a book that is at least 2300 years old.

The early parts of the Bible are way older than that.

 

[Henry Ford]

. You inserted yourself into a conversation and then said you didn't want to be part of it.

Lol, I like that shtick.

It seems to me that it is a major shift to go from believing the bible is the inerrant word of God to thinking this is book of stories written by men. When you start throwing out parts of it, what is to say that any of it should be relied upon?

Allow me to insert myself and then back out again.Inerrant does not mean it is scientifically correct. The bible can be (and is imo) inerrant in terms of faith and morals without being inerrant in terms of scientific fact. History and science were not recorded and facts were not cataloged the way we do now until very recently.

If it's full of scientific errors because people didn't understand, why assume it's not full of moral errors because people didn't understand?

What does scientific progress have to do with moral law?

They're both rife with incorrect conclusions throughout history due to human fallibility.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

. You inserted yourself into a conversation and then said you didn't want to be part of it.

Lol, I like that shtick.

It seems to me that it is a major shift to go from believing the bible is the inerrant word of God to thinking this is book of stories written by men. When you start throwing out parts of it, what is to say that any of it should be relied upon?

Allow me to insert myself and then back out again.

Inerrant does not mean it is scientifically correct. The bible can be (and is imo) inerrant in terms of faith and morals without being inerrant in terms of scientific fact. History and science were not recorded and facts were not cataloged the way we do now until very recently.

If it's full of scientific errors because people didn't understand, why assume it's not full of moral errors because people didn't understand?

What does scientific progress have to do with moral law?

If I accept Henry's definition of goodness (which strikes me as a good one), then it has a lot to do with it. Under that definition, goodness is defined as a condition that maximizes human flourishing. And as scientific knowledge progresses, we possess ever greater knowledge about how the choices we make effect human flourishing.

 

[Bruce Dickinson]

Please define "goodness." While you're at it, please tells us why your definition of "goodness" is any more valid than someone else's which might happen to be very much different? In your world, who gets to say which is right or wrong or define which person has a greater amount of empathy?

Eudaimonia.

I'll be happy to help you out with the rest of your question if you just show me who you're talking about who has a different definition of goodness than I do. Or you can tell me yours, if you want.

My definition of goodness is readily defined for me by Jesus Christ, the prophets who preceded him, and all the saints and apostles which followed. Yours is apparently some ethereal notion and undefinable innate character of mankind despite thousands of years of evidence to the contrary. Who exactly is the one taking things on faith here?

Okay. What is it?And, no it's not "undefinable." I actually just used a word to define it. "Human flourishing characterized by excellence and ethical wisdom" is a pretty good definition.

Yeah. Suck on it, TPW. And don't come back until you get your morality from a book that is at least 2300 years old.

The early parts of the Bible are way older than that.

Exactly.

 

[Psychopav]

. You inserted yourself into a conversation and then said you didn't want to be part of it.

Lol, I like that shtick.

It seems to me that it is a major shift to go from believing the bible is the inerrant word of God to thinking this is book of stories written by men. When you start throwing out parts of it, what is to say that any of it should be relied upon?

Allow me to insert myself and then back out again.

Inerrant does not mean it is scientifically correct. The bible can be (and is imo) inerrant in terms of faith and morals without being inerrant in terms of scientific fact. History and science were not recorded and facts were not cataloged the way we do now until very recently.

If it's full of scientific errors because people didn't understand, why assume it's not full of moral errors because people didn't understand?

What does scientific progress have to do with moral law?

If I accept Henry's definition of goodness (which strikes me as a good one), then it has a lot to do with it. Under that definition, goodness is defined as a condition that maximizes human flourishing. And as scientific knowledge progresses, we possess ever greater knowledge about how the choices we make effect human flourishing.

We do?

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

. You inserted yourself into a conversation and then said you didn't want to be part of it.

Lol, I like that shtick.

It seems to me that it is a major shift to go from believing the bible is the inerrant word of God to thinking this is book of stories written by men. When you start throwing out parts of it, what is to say that any of it should be relied upon?

Allow me to insert myself and then back out again.

Inerrant does not mean it is scientifically correct. The bible can be (and is imo) inerrant in terms of faith and morals without being inerrant in terms of scientific fact. History and science were not recorded and facts were not cataloged the way we do now until very recently.

If it's full of scientific errors because people didn't understand, why assume it's not full of moral errors because people didn't understand?

What does scientific progress have to do with moral law?

If I accept Henry's definition of goodness (which strikes me as a good one), then it has a lot to do with it. Under that definition, goodness is defined as a condition that maximizes human flourishing. And as scientific knowledge progresses, we possess ever greater knowledge about how the choices we make effect human flourishing.

We do?

Yes.

 

[Henry Ford]

Please define "goodness." While you're at it, please tells us why your definition of "goodness" is any more valid than someone else's which might happen to be very much different? In your world, who gets to say which is right or wrong or define which person has a greater amount of empathy?

Eudaimonia.

I'll be happy to help you out with the rest of your question if you just show me who you're talking about who has a different definition of goodness than I do. Or you can tell me yours, if you want.

My definition of goodness is readily defined for me by Jesus Christ, the prophets who preceded him, and all the saints and apostles which followed. Yours is apparently some ethereal notion and undefinable innate character of mankind despite thousands of years of evidence to the contrary. Who exactly is the one taking things on faith here?

Okay. What is it?And, no it's not "undefinable." I actually just used a word to define it. "Human flourishing characterized by excellence and ethical wisdom" is a pretty good definition.

Yeah. Suck on it, TPW. And don't come back until you get your morality from a book that is at least 2300 years old.

The early parts of the Bible are way older than that.

Exactly.

I think I'm missing something.

 

[Henry Ford]

Read the Bible.

You're not coming across very well here, fyi.

Agree. You're dismissing anything he could possibly think before you're willing to hear him out, and when you get backed into the logical corner that inevitably comes when you try to defend a very difficult position from a smart, well educated attorney, you say "read the bible" and peace out of the conversation.

I realize it's difficult to engage hard questions, but you're not doing yourself any favors here. If there are difficult questions above your pay grade, it's probably best to leave them to other people.

Why is this a hard question? Isn't the basic point of all of this religion and morals stuff the idea that we want to do good and avoid doing bad things? How on earth are you going to do that if you don't even know what "good" means?

 

[Bruce Dickinson]

Read the Bible.

You're not coming across very well here, fyi.

Agree. You're dismissing anything he could possibly think before you're willing to hear him out, and when you get backed into the logical corner that inevitably comes when you try to defend a very difficult position from a smart, well educated attorney, you say "read the bible" and peace out of the conversation.

I realize it's difficult to engage hard questions, but you're not doing yourself any favors here. If there are difficult questions above your pay grade, it's probably best to leave them to other people.

Why is this a hard question? Isn't the basic point of all of this religion and morals stuff the idea that we want to do good and avoid doing bad things? How on earth are you going to do that if you don't even know what "good" means?

BOOMSHAKALAKA! You tell 'em, Henry!

 

[Henry Ford]

Read the Bible.

You're not coming across very well here, fyi.

Agree. You're dismissing anything he could possibly think before you're willing to hear him out, and when you get backed into the logical corner that inevitably comes when you try to defend a very difficult position from a smart, well educated attorney, you say "read the bible" and peace out of the conversation.

I realize it's difficult to engage hard questions, but you're not doing yourself any favors here. If there are difficult questions above your pay grade, it's probably best to leave them to other people.

Why is this a hard question? Isn't the basic point of all of this religion and morals stuff the idea that we want to do good and avoid doing bad things? How on earth are you going to do that if you don't even know what "good" means?

BOOMSHAKALAKA! You tell 'em, Henry!

You seem upset.

 

[Bruce Dickinson]

Read the Bible.

You're not coming across very well here, fyi.

Agree. You're dismissing anything he could possibly think before you're willing to hear him out, and when you get backed into the logical corner that inevitably comes when you try to defend a very difficult position from a smart, well educated attorney, you say "read the bible" and peace out of the conversation.

I realize it's difficult to engage hard questions, but you're not doing yourself any favors here. If there are difficult questions above your pay grade, it's probably best to leave them to other people.

Why is this a hard question? Isn't the basic point of all of this religion and morals stuff the idea that we want to do good and avoid doing bad things? How on earth are you going to do that if you don't even know what "good" means?

BOOMSHAKALAKA! You tell 'em, Henry!

You seem upset.

I'm cheering you on. Hit 'em again!

 

[parasaurolophus]

. You inserted yourself into a conversation and then said you didn't want to be part of it.

Lol, I like that shtick.

It seems to me that it is a major shift to go from believing the bible is the inerrant word of God to thinking this is book of stories written by men. When you start throwing out parts of it, what is to say that any of it should be relied upon?

Tre, most theologians who defend inerrancy these days only pull out the inerrancy card when talking about the autographs, as defending an inerrant bible over thousands of years and multiple translations is a bit of a fool's errand. The problem is, we don't have any of the autographs, so it turns into a theoretical discussion. Frankly, I usually see inerrancy brought up by conservatives in political discussions far more than in any kind of academic theological discussion.

Your point is very valid though. If Christians are willing to believe in the god-became-man, lived a perfect life, died for our sins, ascended to heaven, and will come back to judge the living and the dead, then believing things like a global flood or a literal whale for Jonah shouldn't be much of a stretch.

This is an excellent point. Why is one so easily accepted and the others so easily dismissed? If there really is a god, pretty much anything he wanted would be possible. If he wanted to create a talking donkey that could travel through time turning things to gold while bedding every queen of england in history, it would be done. Snap his fingers, piece of cake. I mean he is freaking god after all.

 

[Henry Ford]

I'm not hitting anyone. I asked questions, was asked questions in response and answered them as best I could from my perspective. Why is that a bad thing?

 

[Notorious T.R.E.]

In for talking donkeys.

 

[Psychopav]

. You inserted yourself into a conversation and then said you didn't want to be part of it.

Lol, I like that shtick.

It seems to me that it is a major shift to go from believing the bible is the inerrant word of God to thinking this is book of stories written by men. When you start throwing out parts of it, what is to say that any of it should be relied upon?

Allow me to insert myself and then back out again.

Inerrant does not mean it is scientifically correct. The bible can be (and is imo) inerrant in terms of faith and morals without being inerrant in terms of scientific fact. History and science were not recorded and facts were not cataloged the way we do now until very recently.

If it's full of scientific errors because people didn't understand, why assume it's not full of moral errors because people didn't understand?

What does scientific progress have to do with moral law?

If I accept Henry's definition of goodness (which strikes me as a good one), then it has a lot to do with it. Under that definition, goodness is defined as a condition that maximizes human flourishing. And as scientific knowledge progresses, we possess ever greater knowledge about how the choices we make effect human flourishing.

We do?

Ah. That explains the dramatic drop in suicides, genocides, and crime since the advent of the industrial revolution.

(Plus, now we can insult each other anonymously on the internet)

 

[Bruce Dickinson]

I'm not hitting anyone. I asked questions, was asked questions in response and answered them as best I could from my perspective. Why is that a bad thing?

You're begging the question, Counselor. I'm cheering you on, so obviously I think it's a good thing.

 

[Henry Ford]

. You inserted yourself into a conversation and then said you didn't want to be part of it.

Lol, I like that shtick.

It seems to me that it is a major shift to go from believing the bible is the inerrant word of God to thinking this is book of stories written by men. When you start throwing out parts of it, what is to say that any of it should be relied upon?

Allow me to insert myself and then back out again.Inerrant does not mean it is scientifically correct. The bible can be (and is imo) inerrant in terms of faith and morals without being inerrant in terms of scientific fact. History and science were not recorded and facts were not cataloged the way we do now until very recently.

If it's full of scientific errors because people didn't understand, why assume it's not full of moral errors because people didn't understand?

What does scientific progress have to do with moral law?

If I accept Henry's definition of goodness (which strikes me as a good one), then it has a lot to do with it. Under that definition, goodness is defined as a condition that maximizes human flourishing. And as scientific knowledge progresses, we possess ever greater knowledge about how the choices we make effect human flourishing.

We do?

Ah. That explains the dramatic drop in suicides, genocides, and crime since the advent of the industrial revolution. (Plus, now we can insult each other anonymously on the internet)

Just because things are getting better doesn't mean everything has gotten fixed.

How's slavery compared to 200 years ago? Equality between the sexes? Right of self determination in general? Infant mortality? Life expectancy?

Massive advances have been made. Game ain't over yet, but things are substantially better right now for someone who isn't a white male landowner than they've ever been, on the whole. And even white male landowners have a way better time of it

 

[Henry Ford]

I'm not hitting anyone. I asked questions, was asked questions in response and answered them as best I could from my perspective. Why is that a bad thing?

You're begging the question, Counselor. I'm cheering you on, so obviously I think it's a good thing.

I'm really not begging the question. But I'm happy you are happy.