Offshoot discussion of "what religion are you" thread

[Rían]

Originally posted by Eruviel Greenleaf
First off, thanks! I really appreciate the large amount of effort you've put into this thread!

You're welcome, and I'm willing to stick it out and talk this whole question thru, as long as you're willing to read and consider it

...however, I think it is further possible and even logical to believe that there is more than one truth about the way things are. .... Say there was a Big Bang, simultaneously directed by multiple deities.

Well, then, that would be the truth, that there were multiple deities involved. If we're going to disagree about this issue (that there is an absolute truth), then really there is no point in going on, because logical discussion is based on accepting things to be true or false, don't you think? IOW, we can't draw conclusions if we keep saying "well, that might be true, but then again it might not".

On to your next example. ....

Yes, there can certainly be different perspectives! And also incorrect memories. But there is ONE truth. But I think it is also true that there is one truth in every situation, even for things like heaven and hell.

(unless, like me, you believe in the multi-world theory)...

Even if there are different gods in different worlds, there would still be a truth about this state of being.

I really couldn't say EXACTLY where I am going with this, I'm mostly just thinking "out loud." But I understand what you said in your last post, and please do continue if you can

That's ok, I like to muse aloud too, and it helps to think things out that way sometimes. I'll continue, then, but prob. not until tomorrow, I"m tied up for the rest of the night.

Could you think about it some more and let me know if you think that there is a single truth about the existence of gods or God? It may not be knowable, but there is a certain true situation at this point in time, tho. Would you agree?

[Rían]

And I guess we could go on anyway, even if you haven't made up your mind...

Mergh, I'm in a bummer of a mood tonite - I'd like to be able to talk about this more, but I have to go somewhere that I don't feel like going to -

[Eruviel Greenleaf]

Originally posted by RÃ*an

You're welcome, and I'm willing to stick it out and talk this whole question thru, as long as you're willing to read and consider it

Definitely willing! (time permitting, of course. But what am I saying? At least on my side of the discussion, all I'm doing now is looking for a job and harassing my friends! )

Well, then, that would be the truth, that there were multiple deities involved. If we're going to disagree about this issue (that there is an absolute truth), then really there is no point in going on, because logical discussion is based on accepting things to be true or false, don't you think? IOW, we can't draw conclusions if we keep saying "well, that might be true, but then again it might not".

Hmm. I think I put that wrong, it's not quite what I meant, though I'm not sure how else I can put it. Alas.

However, I disagree that logical discussion is necessarily based on accepting things to be true or false. I don't know about you, but I'm not here to draw conclusions, at least not as my primary goal. What I am here for is to try to get a better understanding of other people's beliefs, and have a logical discussion based on our differing beliefs. I do not believe in absolute truth. You do. We go from there?

Yes, there can certainly be different perspectives! And also incorrect memories. But there is ONE truth. But I think it is also true that there is one truth in every situation, even for things like heaven and hell.

Then here we disagree; I think the larger and more abstract the case, the less absolute and single the truth, at least generally speaking. So, we have established disagreement in this case. Is it possible to move on from there?

Even if there are different gods in different worlds, there would still be a truth about this state of being.

Again, not quite what I was getting at, but that's alright. See, the absolute truth there would be that there's more than one world, not about what gods exist in that world. Gods, according to my beliefs, are above the seperation of the worlds and therefore can exist simultaneously. I think I spend too much time reading Phillip Pullman's His Dark Materials. . . (large focus on religion, most of it anti-church and authority in sentiment. based quite a bit on Paradise Lost, playing off of the sympathetic view of Lucifer Morningstar.)

Could you think about it some more and let me know if you think that there is a single truth about the existence of gods or God? It may not be knowable, but there is a certain true situation at this point in time, tho. Would you agree?

Well, I don't think there is a single truth, as I've said. I don't think we as mortal beings can ever really know the truth (or truths) until we die, and even then the truth is not absolute. I believe in things like reincarnation, and eventual enlightenment (I suppose the most accurate description of my beliefs would be a mix of Buddhism, Wicca, and Shinto.). But I don't think we ever really know the truth. That gets into a lot of stuff about perceptions and so on, and that's a whole other discussion, but I don't believe that the truth can ever be known fully and absolutely. By anyone, even the Gods, excepting maybe the Enlightened Ones, and even then that's debatable.

So, Rian, do you think we can continue there? We both know each other's beliefs about truth and its absoluteness (or lack thereof), so do we move on from there or keep this discussion up?

[IronParrot]

This is mostly a response to Lief. I will be brief. Hey, that rhymes.

I asked, several pages back, what breaks the circular self-affirmation of the Bible. What proves that it is the indisputable Word of God?

Well, you wrote down a lot of pretty stuff about how venerable the Bible has been, and how it's survived despite so many pressing circumstances, but does that really say anything?

Let's look at Greek culture. It survived the fall of Greece, the Christianization of Rome, the Crusades, the Dark Ages - only to resurface in the Renaissance. Sophocles, Aristotle, Plato, Cicero (Roman, I know), Archimedes, Ptolemy, even Pythagoras (of trigonometric fame) all thrived and resurfaced in a big way. And not just through cultural and religious purges in general, but even through such cataclysmic tragedies as the burning of Alexandria. The Homeric epics are studied to this day; entire courses are devoted to those solitary works of literature. Entire lives are devoted to their translation and analysis. True, statistically the Bible has been around longer and has reached more people; but it did get a head start, and one heck of a boost from the likes of Constantine.

But here's another interesting point: my understanding - please correct me - is that although the Bible is presumed to be the direct Word of God, it was still scribed by Man - be it Moses, Joshua, Matthew, whoever. The important thing is that it was still written down by Man, albeit "inspired" by God. Therefore, God had to put everything into terms that Man could understand, and furthermore, be able to write down in the language of the time.

Given that a) the lexicons of these early languages were not very robust; b) the intellectual capabilities of Man were what we would now call "primitive"; and c) the worldview of the Hebrews was severely limited in scope; how could The Word of God For Dummies still pass off as the Word of God in the face of superior empirical evidence?

So my point is, even if God did exist, why rule out the possibility that things were severely simplified to conform to Man's level of intellectual maturity? And if that holds, then doesn't strict adherence to the Bible word for word become obsolete with human advancement, both cultural and scientific?

We're talking about a set of documents that were written before anybody had ever heard of Galilean scientific method, human rights, universal suffrage (let alone the vote), existentialism, atomic theory, relativity - and let's not even get started on genetics.

If one insists that God must exist, and that the Bible isn't wholly false (just divertingly rhetorical and prosaic), that leads to a more reasonable claim: that God left out a lot of details that would be completely incomprehensible to the scribes he was busy "inspiring", and that the Bible is a general, metaphorical framework for history.

And who are the people who refute this? The same ones who claim that the Bible is The Word of God, Period, and stands as canonical truth that precedes the empirical. And this claim is, as I've pointed out, circular. This casts a shadow of doubt upon the entire work.

I'm not saying that God doesn't exist - that is just a "hunch" on my part, with about as much proof as belief in God does (i.e. roundabout none) - but the veracity of the Bible is highly questionable either way you put it.

On a note about all religions, not just Christianity: I don't agree with Marx about a lot of things (being the capitalist bourgeois pigdog I am) - but one thing I think he got right was that religion is part of a superstructure of authoritarian control. No matter how you put it, a dictated adherence to a document as "truth" - be it anything from the Holy Bible to Mao's Little Red Book - is a restriction upon human thought. That, to me, stunts the progress of the human mind; and I don't see how that is in any way a good thing. It is human nature to question, and questioning the grand narratives of existence is the paragon of this endeavour. It's essential to self-determination and the overall development of civilization.

I think practically everybody on this board lives in a society guided by the Rule of Law. By a Constitution. They serve as a framework for our lives, but at least they can be amended.

[Ruinel]

I know this is a bit off topic, but I thought the Christians would be pleased to know that they have converted Coney to Christianity.
Here's his post in the Mud Wrestling thread...

Originally posted by Coney
...We're fightng for Jesus ...

If someone would be so kind as to send him a copy of the Bible and email him some literature I'm sure he would be pleased.

[Ararax]

i think a coney rabbit would be more likely to read a bible not that either can read

[Eruviel Greenleaf]

Coney, you didn't! *looks horrified*

Riiiight, anyway. *tries to be serious*
*realizes this is a futile effort*

Anyway, um, IronParrot, nice post. Well thought out and whatnot. *admires IP's post* (not to mention that I agree with it, but the main point is that I thought it was well written. um.)

[Rían]

Originally posted by Eruviel Greenleaf
So, Rian, do you think we can continue there? We both know each other's beliefs about truth and its absoluteness (or lack thereof), so do we move on from there or keep this discussion up?

I'm sorry, EG, I was a real jerk last night, and your response was extremely gracious. *bops self on head* I was really bummed out about some things, and went into a hyper-engineering mode (I worked in engineering for 10 yrs) and acted like a jerk. Sorry - of course we can go on, and we don't have to agree.

Well, I believe that there is a true state of things, and even in your multiple worlds/multiple gods example, to me, well, that would be the true state of things. So a statement like "there is only one God" would be either true or false, or would need to be properly clarified to something that CAN be declared to be true or false, like "there is only one God in THIS world". Now that still doesn't mean that we'll KNOW if it's true or false, just that there IS a true statement of what is real.

SO - I think I'll take a bit of a coming-from-all-angles approach here - since for me, and also according to the Bible, there IS a truth - and go into the hell thing from different sides.

(to be continued in next post )

[Rían]

The above title was meant to be humorous, but really, I think it expresses what some people think, altho they haven't fully thought it out, when they say things like "why does there have to BE a hell, anyway?"

One of the best statements I've ever came across was from a C. S. Lewis book ("of course!", says anyone that knows me ) (I added the bold part for emphasis) -

from "Mere Christianity", by C. S. Lewis
Notice, too, their idea of God "making religion simple": as if "religion" were something God invented, and not His statement to us of certain quite unalterable facts about His own nature.

(and I would add "and certain quite unalterable facts about His creation")

Now here are some thoughts I've heard expressed about hell:

a conglomeration of many thoughts I've heard expressed
Why does there have to even BE a hell? I thought God was loving! I try my best, I'm a good person, I shouldn't go to hell. In fact, I know I WON"T go to hell. I don't think there IS even a hell. And if there really is, then God must be really mean and cruel to send people there just because He got mad at them or something. Well, I think I'll just go with this religion over here, which says that there isn't a hell, then I'll be safe.

There's several things going on in these thoughts. One of the big ones seems to be the thought that God all of a sudden decided to make hell one day when He was in a really bad mood or something.

Option 1 - cranky mood: "Hey, are those guys lying AGAIN?!?! Well, I've had ENOUGH! Those idiots are really ticking me off!! I'll show them, I'll make hell and send them there! THAT'LL serve them right!

Option 2 - childish mood: "And how about those guys over there? Why, they're COMPLETELY ignoring me!! How insulting! I'm really hurt *sniff* - I'll pay THEM back! I'll send THEM to hell, too!"

Option 3 - jealous mood: "OH MY GOD! (tee hee, I made a funny!! I'm just such a great God! I love Myself!) Those creeps over there are actually worshipping some other god! Hey, what about Me? I'm lots better!! *pout* Look at everything I've done for you - given you nice laws and things, and you're worshipping those gods?!?!!? Well, you're going to hell, buddy!!



OK, now be honest - have any of these gone thru your head? I know they've gone thru mine.

[Eruviel Greenleaf]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
I'm sorry, EG, I was a real jerk last night, and your response was extremely gracious. *bops self on head* I was really bummed out about some things, and went into a hyper-engineering mode (I worked in engineering for 10 yrs) and acted like a jerk. Sorry - of course we can go on, and we don't have to agree.

Hey, no problem! No offense taken, and I hope today will be better for you. I'm glad we can agree to disagree

*sees Rian's next post* ooh, we get to talk about Hell now! yay! Maybe I should reread Dante's Inferno

[Rían]

OK, EG, I finished editing my post (the one above yours) - any thoughts?

[Eruviel Greenleaf]

Yes, those ideas have. Certainly. Although, I don't think of Hell so much as being made by God in a bad/jealous/childish mood, but the idea of putting people there. Um. I guess it's pretty much the same...ish. But, yes, and most especially the Jealous one. Although I find that "Jealous God" thing all over, not just in the existance of hell.

Another thought that I've had on hell is the subjugation of the masses thing again. "If you don't do what you're told you'll go to hell." That sort of thing.

So please, tell me more!

On a side note, true to my somewhat blasphemous nature (but only blasphemous to those who believe, not to me. Um.), I found this online quiz thing that told you what level of hell you belonged in. I got banished to the seventh level.

[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?

[Rían]

I'm living dangerously trying to deal with 2 complex subjects at once, but... oh well... there's a couple of comments that I'd like to throw in here on your post, IP -

Originally posted by IronParrot
Well, you wrote down a lot of pretty stuff about how venerable the Bible has been, and how it's survived despite so many pressing circumstances, but does that really say anything?

I think his point was that examined as a piece of ancient literature, which it is (among other things), it has incredibly good credentials. If it was found to be simply riddled with archaeological, copying, and other errors (which it is NOT), then it would be reasonable to have some doubts about its veracity.

.....but it did get a head start, and one heck of a boost from the likes of Constantine.

Hmmm, possibly part of God's plan concerning this one particular piece of literature?

But here's another interesting point: my understanding - please correct me - is that although the Bible is presumed to be the direct Word of God, it was still scribed by Man - be it Moses, Joshua, Matthew, whoever. The important thing is that it was still written down by Man, albeit "inspired" by God. Therefore, God had to put everything into terms that Man could understand, and furthermore, be able to write down in the language of the time.

And an alternate plan would be ... what?? To not say anything?
I think God did a v. difficult job extremely well! OF COURSE it would have to be in a form understandable by people, and in the languages of the time. What's so amazing is that it is still relevant and understandable TODAY.

Given that a) the lexicons of these early languages were not very robust; b) the intellectual capabilities of Man were what we would now call "primitive"; and c) the worldview of the Hebrews was severely limited in scope; how could The Word of God For Dummies still pass off as the Word of God in the face of superior empirical evidence?

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

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.

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!

[Eruviel Greenleaf]

Sorry if I'm spamming, but. . .I just really liked this:

The Word of God For Dummies

[Rían]

Originally posted by IronParrot
So my point is, even if God did exist, why rule out the possibility that things were severely simplified to conform to Man's level of intellectual maturity? And if that holds, then doesn't strict adherence to the Bible word for word become obsolete with human advancement, both cultural and scientific?

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.

We're talking about a set of documents that were written before anybody had ever heard of Galilean scientific method, human rights, universal suffrage (let alone the vote), existentialism, atomic theory, relativity - and let's not even get started on genetics.

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.

If one insists that God must exist, and that the Bible isn't wholly false (just divertingly rhetorical and prosaic), that leads to a more reasonable claim: that God left out a lot of details that would be completely incomprehensible to the scribes he was busy "inspiring", and that the Bible is a general, metaphorical framework for history.

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!

And who are the people who refute this? The same ones who claim that the Bible is The Word of God, Period, and stands as canonical truth that precedes the empirical. And this claim is, as I've pointed out, circular. This casts a shadow of doubt upon the entire work.

Well, if that circular argument is all they have, I don't blame you for objecting.

I'm not saying that God doesn't exist - that is just a "hunch" on my part, with about as much proof as belief in God does (i.e. roundabout none) - but the veracity of the Bible is highly questionable either way you put it.

I disagree for reasons listed above.

No matter how you put it, a dictated adherence to a document as "truth" - be it anything from the Holy Bible to Mao's Little Red Book - is a restriction upon human thought. That, to me, stunts the progress of the human mind; and I don't see how that is in any way a good thing. It is human nature to question, and questioning the grand narratives of existence is the paragon of this endeavour. It's essential to self-determination and the overall development of civilization.

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

I think practically everybody on this board lives in a society guided by the Rule of Law. By a Constitution. They serve as a framework for our lives, but at least they can be amended.

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.

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

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally posted by Ruinel
I know this is a bit off topic, but I thought the Christians would be pleased to know that they have converted Coney to Christianity.

Hey, don't insult the poor fella!

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Are all restrictions bad? How about the restriction against killing people?

I would have said that it doesn't impose restriction on human thought so much as human action. But I think Rian's was better.

Hmmm, possibly part of God's plan concerning this one particular piece of literature?

I would say not to forget that during the Dark Ages reading of the Bible was pretty well squelched, do to the fact that few people could speak the language(s) it was preserved in, and obtaining higher education was hardly an option for most. Really, the Bible and Homer were "revived" at about the same time.

[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".

[IronParrot]

I think his point was that examined as a piece of ancient literature, which it is (among other things), it has incredibly good credentials. If it was found to be simply riddled with archaeological, copying, and other errors (which it is NOT), then it would be reasonable to have some doubts about its veracity.

And my point is that for those exact reasons, the Bible should be examined as an ancient piece of literature. You will note that the Siege of Troy is consistent with archaeological evidence as well. Compared to the hard evidence we have, it is free of "error". Yet there is no proof (or disproof, for that matter) that Zeus, Athena and Apollo existed and played the parts they did in the grand scheme of Greek history.

Hmmm, possibly part of God's plan concerning this one particular piece of literature?

Yes, just as much as you could say it was Odin's plan to have his tales immortalized by the likes of Wagner. (Try as you may, that cannot be disproven. Though I obviously don't believe it.)

And an alternate plan would be ... what?? To not say anything?
I think God did a v. difficult job extremely well! OF COURSE it would have to be in a form understandable by people, and in the languages of the time. What's so amazing is that it is still relevant and understandable TODAY.

Yes, it is still relevant and understandable, but that is different from it being true to the letter. The Lord of the Rings is very relevant in today's political climate. Hamlet and Julius Caesar were critiques of power that continue to be cited today.

I might as well use poor Pythagoras as an example again. The only reason a-squared plus b-squared equals c-squared is still taught in schools is because it is "relevant and understandable". That does not make it true! In fact, the Pythagorean theorem is only true under strict, abstract definitional conditions of perfectly orthogonal space. It is an approximation. Similarly, the Conservation Laws are approximations that are shattered at the subatomic level. Adam Smith's supply-and-demand model is obsolete, yet it is still taught and moreover, applied. Why? Because it works to a degree. But just because it works in some contexts doesn't mean it works in all.

If the Bible is indeed simplified - as you readily admit - then it cannot be taken as solid truth, but rather an approximated model. And no way would such an approximated model make any mention of, say, evolutionary processes. Remember that the societies in which the Bible originated and propogated still subjugated women, bred intolerance of alternate faiths, and didn't even know there was such a thing as America (let alone Native Americans and their own specific traditions).

I blame it all on that nasty little passage in Revelations that essentially "locks" the Bible from further amendment. The impossibility of amendment is what separates it from scientific laws (constantly revised by Galilean experimentation) and civil laws (amended by human legislation). Because these are free to be challenged and revised all the time, they never claim any sort of absolute universal truth. Yet like the Bible, their relevance remains. 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.

When one claims that the Bible is truth, one is claiming that a millennia-old document is not open to challenge. That, to me, is unjustified.