Offshoot discussion of "what religion are you" thread

[IronParrot]

about a) - why does that matter? Do you think God failed to consider that? Perhaps he chose that language for a good reason.

Because language is a mechanism not only for the transmission of knowledge, but its storage. A language with a limited vocabulary cannot express everything that might need to be. God could have inspired an entire book prophesying the creation of the Internet, but the Hebrews wouldn't be able to write it down with any degree of precision.

about b) - absolutely not!! Pardon me, but that's artifact/accumulated-knowledge snobbery, don't you think? Now they may not have had as much KNOWLEDGE, but that is NO reflection on their intellectual capabilities. I heard a good statement once that I think fits this situation very well - roughly, "the same wheel that proved its first maker a genius would prove a wheelmaker 200 years later a dunce." IOW, whoever first thought of the wheel was absolutely brilliant, and I'm sure the wheel was rather a rough and inefficient one. But after hundred of years of wheel making, OF COURSE a wheel would be better - that, however, doesn't mean the wheel MAKERS are any smarter.

Look at the degree of education or literacy in a given society. That's a good indicator, and that's more what I'm referring to here (not the size of the human brain). I would say that human beings as they are currently are far "smarter" (and far more capable of being so) because comprehensive education is more prevalent. We live in a society that no longer believes that all things fundamentally reduce to earth, fire, wind, water and Captain Planet. There's no confusion with knowledge here, because sometimes, an item of knowledge is an essential foundation to further understanding. You could claim all you want that the Greeks could have come up with electronics, but their primitive concept of the atom as a solid unit of infinite hardness precluded them from doing so. Though we do have to give them credit for coming up with the atom concept.

about c) - same answer as for a), and I think you're again mixing up amount of KNOWLEDGE for intellectual capacity when you use the term "dummies". There were many, many brilliant people in the ancient world. You know Pythagoras' brilliant work, but that is no credit to you - YOU didn't come up with it!

But as I said before, Pythagoras' work - while revolutionary for their time - was just a baby step towards where we are today, when we deal with triangulating non-Euclidean space (i.e. the fact that the world is round). Perhaps I was unclear: by intellectual capacity, I was not referring to the ability to think. I was referring to the restriction on such thinking due to the lack of a good educational base in ancient societies. You can only do so much in a lifetime.

According to the Catholic Church (pre-1960), the heavenly bodies revolved around the Earth. Thankfully, they lifted their ban on Galileo, or their credibility really would be shot.

Um, I would say BY DEFINITION that God has severely simplified things. If a being that is omniscient has to communicate with beings that AREN'T, then obviously the info HAS to be severly simplified. That doesn't mean that it's not SIGNIFICANT, however.

Well of course the Bible is significant! But that doesn't mean it's true to the letter, or that it's the Word of God at all. My very point - with which you have here concurred - is that the Bible is full of holes.

[IronParrot]

Why do those things matter? If the subject matter of the Bible was physics or genetics or cultural events, then it would matter. However, the Bible deals with the human soul - its condition and relationship to God. Has genetics changed that? It also deals with some other things, too, such as the character of God - has the atomic theory changed God's character? Again, that's what's so brilliant about the Bible - it is applicable/significant in all times.

I don't have a problem with that. Of course the Bible deals with the human soul. I bring up things like genetics because so many people out there discredit reasoned, inductive scientific discoveries because "that's not what the Bible says." Well, disregard those parts of the Bible, and take it as a guide to living a specific lifestyle - not as universal truth. I would have absolutely no problem with religion if it didn't make any claims to universality.

If you believe that God exists and that living a certain way will get you to heaven - then God exists and you'll go to heaven. But let the poor little Greek boy who supplicated to Athena live his own afterlife, without shoving him into that Hell of yours. Let the Buddhists be reincarnated as much as they want until they reach Nirvana. Let the Jedi try to become one with the Force. And let the atheists reject all of these. If you believe it, it's true - to you. That does not make it universal. Which is why society should be governed by the lowest common denominator: the lack of belief. In essence, a tolerant secular civilization.

See above answer. And can you tell me how things like this: "Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind let each of you regard one another as more important than himself; do not merely look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others." (Philippians 2:3,4) and this: "Therefore whatever you want others to do for you, do so for them" (Matthew 7:12) are not applicable today? Good thing God didn't put in things like "and please obey the speed limit of 65 on most major American freeways" in the Bible!

The quotes you mentioned are principles to live by: they are recommendations, not assertions of universal truth. I don't have a problem with them, and they aren't the parts that discredit the Bible.

Are all restrictions bad? How about the restriction against killing people?

The restriction against killing people is part of our legal code. And it's not because it's one of God's commandments, because various societies had laws against murder long before Christianity was ever introduced. Once again, I find that the Rule of Law is legitimate because they are specifically codified, legislated and enforced in a manner that is open to review.

In the present day, we are restricted from killing people because we are guided by the principle of human rights, namely, the right to life. And it's a human concept that we should live and let live, not a universally applicable truth (contrary to what Kant may claim). We agree to live by it due to our relationship to the state.

I choose not to kill people, not because the Bible says I'll go to Hell, but because I have a responsibility to maintain my end of the social contract. I am not in any way religious, though I derive a personal standard of morality from our societal framework. What is most important is that I do not presume my moral standards to be the same as anybody else's - nor do they need to be. Morals govern individuals. Laws govern societies. You can derive your morals from your religion, and I have no problem with that; just don't pretend they govern me too.

But anyway, I'm ranting more about the church-state relationship now than I am about religion itself. So I'll stop there before I really go off on a tangent.

Good thing society's laws can be amended, because they has culturally-specific things built in. The laws can be BASED, however, on the non-culturally-or-time-bound principles in the Bible, God's Word, eternally significant.

And once again, I do not doubt the Bible's significance. But universal truth it is not.

[IronParrot]

Good post, IP, I enjoyed discussing it. What do you think of my responses?

I liked them, actually. After all, I'm here to discuss, not convince.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally posted by IronParrot
Hammurabi's code of law in ancient Babylon is still relevant in the sense that it introduced the concept of the legal code, but it wouldn't be very pleasant if we still enforced "an eye for an eye" in a literal sense.

Since when is Justice "pleasant" to the lawbreaker?

[IronParrot]

Since when is Justice "pleasant" to the wrongdoer?

I meant it in relative terms. If a murderer gets a life sentence in a cozy "prison", that's certainly a more pleasant circumstance for him than the death penalty. And markedly un-Babylonian.

I'd also nitpick about your use of "wrongdoer" here, though I know you were referring to criminality, not morality. As I've stated before, criminal justice and law are not judgments of moral rights and wrongs, nor should they be. "Legal vs. illegal" is the question at hand in codified law, whilst "right vs. wrong" is a question of morality in divine law. I argue that we are (and should be) governed by the former, and self-govern with the guidance of the latter (should we choose to do so). Sophocles disagrees. Screw him.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Where'd you get "wrongdoer" from?

[IronParrot]

You dastardly revisionist, you.

[Ruinel]

damn, IP! You are long winded! *rubs eyes* Glad you are on MY side.

[Rían]

Originally posted by IronParrot
..... "Legal vs. illegal" is the question at hand in codified law, whilst "right vs. wrong" is a question of morality in divine law.....

And why are certain things made to be "illegal"? Because they are wrong, perhaps? Or are actions chosen at random to be illegal? Do you see masses of people clamoring to make donating money to help victims of tragedies illegal? No, but you see people objecting to those people that pilfer from those funds, because that's wrong. And there are laws on the books that make stealing illegal.

Well of course the Bible is significant! But that doesn't mean it's true to the letter, or that it's the Word of God at all.

Perhaps I should clarify my opinion of the Bible... I don't have a super-legalistic view of it, as some Christians do. But I want to get back to EG's subject first...

My very point - with which you have here concurred - is that the Bible is full of holes.

Can you please quote where I concurred with you that it is "full of holes"? I certainly don't think that, and I certainly didn't intend to write anything like that, but right now my 2 youngest kids keep coming in with homework questions and I may have mistyped something .... (IOW, you're full of baloney, Mr. Parrot - I never concurred with that!)

[Rían]

Originally posted by Ruinel
damn, IP! You are long winded! *rubs eyes* Glad you are on MY side.

I'm pretty long-winded too, wouldn't you say? Perhaps the last person left awake should be declared winner

[Rían]

Originally posted by Eruviel Greenleaf
So please, tell me more!

Read that and weep, Ruinel! (j/k!) *Ru tears out more hair*

OK, the next thing I'd like to talk about is justice. I think that lots of people think (wrongly) of the justice of God, like it's vindictive - like "I"ll get them, they broke my pretty laws!". Or like you said, the "subjugation of the masses" thing - (that one is pretty funny to picture! Reminds me of how I send my kids to their rooms sometimes.... ) - "Dang, I'm losing control of those wild people, oh hell, I'll send 'em all to .. um, hell, and let the nice ones play in heaven with Me!" But is there a non-vindictive, or "right" way, for justice to occur?

I'd like to throw it back to you and see what you think about this - to use a rather blatant example, do you think a pedophile/murderer that kidnaps children and then rapes and tortures them then kills them should be left unpunished? If so, why? If not, why not?


*note to self - deal with "jealous" thing later ... if I remember after discussing hell and Bible ....*

[Rían]

Originally posted by Lizra
I have to disagree with the statement "the Bible is applicable/significant in all times". It does not apply to this time for me, and many others. That's probably why a fair amount of people right here do not take it seriously. It's forced upon you, if you want to "live forever".

I mean applicable in the sense of the moral code (such as loving others) is not outdated by mere passage of time or change of culture or advancement of knowledge. What do you think of that?

[Rían]

Originally posted by Arien the Maia
I've always thought that hell was simply the opposite of God...IOW whatever God does/says is LAW because He is God and He made everything, and if you don't follow that law then naturally you are rebelling against the natural order of the Law....does that mae sense?

I would say that God has no opposite (in the sense of equal but opposite), but hell is the opposite of heaven.
I like what you say in the rest of your post, altho I would add that the law is GOOD - it's not just some random stuff that God decided to make a law about and then blast people if they didn't obey it. But actually that is the next point I'm going to discuss after justice - the "natural" (or "real") order.

[Rían]

PS - re the justice thing -
I'm NOT going the "and so it's a just action for God to send the sucker to hell!" route with this, BTW....

[Lizra]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
I mean applicable in the sense of the moral code (such as loving others) is not outdated by mere passage of time or change of culture or advancement of knowledge. What do you think of that?

I've always enjoyed many of the "moral" teachings of Jesus Christ, in the New Testament. It's the "You must believe"..creator...savior part that stops me cold! That's why I said (somewhere back there! ) I wish Christian religion could be of the times, Give people good guidlines and values, the "love one another" ethic, stuff people need, TODAY! Lose the creation story, heaven/hell afterlife, angels...the "unbelievable" stuff!

[Gwaimir Windgem]

It does give people that, today. As for the rest, Christianity does not "lose" it, simply because it is true.

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
It does give people that, today. As for the rest, Christianity does not "lose" it, simply because it is true.

That is your opinion.

Originally posted by RÃ*an, the Long Winded One
Read that and weep, Ruinel! (j/k!) *Ru tears out more hair*

*is weeping* ...

I'd like to throw it back to you and see what you think about this - to use a rather blatant example, do you think a pedophile/murderer that kidnaps children and then rapes and tortures them then kills them should be left unpunished? If so, why? If not, why not?

Yes, they should be punished ... because I said so. Ok.. j/k.

If a society makes laws such as, citizens will not take the life of another unless in self defense, then that society must also have repercussions if that law is broken. Without a negative consequence to breaking the law, the law would have no value and no one would obey it.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally posted by Ruinel
1) That is your opinion.


2) If a society makes laws such as, citizens will not take the life of another unless in self defense, then that society must also have repercussions if that law is broken. Without a negative consequence to breaking the law, the law would have no value and no one would obey it.

1) Thought if all you people can state your beliefs as fact, I must as well do it a little bit.
2) What if the society did not have anything against such an action?

[Lizra]

Stick your head in the sand! Go ahead! Time to "agree to disagree" with another one! Brick walls.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

What, you don't think I have the right to state my beliefs as fact, as you do with yours?