Freethought & Rationalism Archive

lpetrich · 11-12-2004, 06:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ed

But Jesus wanted Paul to explain some of the deeper things of his message and go into subjects He didnt cover while He was here.

Says who?

Quote:

Their relative importance to his mission which was primarily to the Jews was like dogs that pick up the leftovers and scraps that the jews rejected.

???

Quote:

But the fact that he DID notice her and heal her shows that he cared about the gentiles a great deal.

She had to talk him into it.

Quote:

See also his stating that a Roman soldier had more faith than any jew in Israel.

Many bigots have said: "Some of my best friends are..."

Quote:

But Christ dealt with the Pharisees in small groups generally the Talmud was written by many rabbis and with great hindsight, so they will come across better than in an immediate real time situation.

Didn't get the point. Many of the rabbis in the Talmud were masters at disputation; they might be able to hold their own against some of our more proficient debaters. So the New Testament Pharisees were likely made pushovers so that Jesus Christ would seem like he could easily defeat them.

Ed · 11-13-2004, 09:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lpetrich

Originally Posted by Ed
I would hardly call basic human rights, vague principles.

lp: I meant vague descriptions and vague sort-of fits. One could, if one had enough imagination, derive the US Constitution from Sharia law or Rome's Twelve Tables or the Buddha's Five Moral Rules or the Laws of Manu or some version of the Egyptian Negative Confession.

Hardly. Sharia law does not allow for separation of church and state and Roman law is very anti-women and etc. The US would be a very different place if it had not been strongly influenced by Judeo-Christian principles. Compare the US to Iran, China, India, etc.

Quote:

Ed: No, but one of the main crys of the Revolution was "No king but Jesus!"

lp: However, the article Was "No King but Jesus" a Revolutionary War Slogan?
explains that it was only a minor slogan. And in any case, neither the Constitution nor the DoI claims that.

No, but it does show that biblical Christianity is an antidote against tyranny.

Quote:

Ed: Romans 13 does not rule out democracy.

lp: A rather serious stretch -- "we the people" is not Mr. G.

See my earlier post where I explain how we represent God by being made in his image.

lpetrich · 11-14-2004, 10:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ed

Hardly. Sharia law does not allow for separation of church and state

Much of Xtianity has not been very big on church-state separation, it must be said. And please don't use the "No True Scotsman" fallacy:

No Scotsman puts sugar in his porridge!
I just saw my friend Angus putting sugar in his porridge.
No true Scotsman does that!

Quote:

and Roman law is very anti-women and etc.

No more than much of the Bible.

Quote:

See my earlier post where I explain how we represent God by being made in his image.

Meaning that we cannot be evil sinners who cannot possibly do anything right on our initiative, right?

Ed · 11-16-2004, 09:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

Ed: We won't fully understand God's justice until the afterlife, but we can see that all humans desire justice and this is evidence that a God that is concerned about justice exists and created us in his image. Also that justice actually exists and is not just an evolutionary and social construct.

jtb: This is not true, and even you can see that it isn't true. That's why you keep inventing non-Biblical doctrines and ignoring what the Bible actually says.

Ed: Ok, give an example of a healthy person who DOES NOT desire justice.

jtb: When I said "this is not true", I wasn't referring to "all humans desire justice", but to the notion that God cares about justice. You keep trying to rewrite the Bible because of this problem.

He obviously cares about justice or He would never have sent His Son to die for our sins.

Quote:

jtb: Hindus believe in a multi-part divinity. Their doctrine that all the gods share the same "essence" doesn't change that. You are simply wrong. And, apparently, you're a polytheist: Christians believe that there is only one God.

It is very likely that the Christian Trinity was copied from the Hindu one. Or did you not know that Hindus venerate a Trinity?

Ed: No, Hindus believe in one totally unified god, the "parts" are just illusions. Their "gods" are more than just the same essence, they are also the same Being.

jtb: You seem to be confirming my point: you are a Christian heretic, a polytheist, who worships a pantheon of three independent beings.

No, the Christian worships one single being but three separate persons.

Quote:

Ed: And your example is actually a manmade creation that mirrors the unities and diversities inherent in the universe. Because the cities and states are all real separate individual entities within a unity of the US. If it was based on hinduism then the states would just be illuisons and not actual separate entities.

jtb: But they ARE illusions. Go to any state border, test the soil on either side, and you won't be able to detect any physical characteristic that distinguishes the territory of one state from the next.

In your world, there should be only three states (and no counties etc), all part of one nation, with physical borders.

Ed: Actually I meant to say that the CITIES would just be illusions but they are not, they actually exist.

jtb: Cities are illusions too. They're just names we give to a denser-than-usual blob of buildings occupying a very loosely-defined area. There is no "magic number" of buildings that distinguishes a town from a city, there is no detectable change in physical characteristics when a town becomes a city, and most modern cities have no clear boundaries: they're surrounded by sprawling suburbs, industrial units, and satellite "towns" which have merged with the city even though they retain their old names. A city boundary is just a line on a map, marked by a road sign.

In your world, there would be three cities surrounded by city walls, with no buildings outside them.

No, a city boundary is more than just a line on a map. It determines where you live, how much tax you pay, who rules over you, and etc.

Jack the Bodiless · 11-17-2004, 01:30 AM

Quote:

jtb: When I said "this is not true", I wasn't referring to "all humans desire justice", but to the notion that God cares about justice. You keep trying to rewrite the Bible because of this problem.

He obviously cares about justice or He would never have sent His Son to die for our sins.

That wasn't "justice".

"Justice" refers to the concept of individuals being rewarded or punished according to their own actions (and not the actions of others): a concept largely alien to the Bible.

Quote:

Ed: No, Hindus believe in one totally unified god, the "parts" are just illusions. Their "gods" are more than just the same essence, they are also the same Being.

jtb: You seem to be confirming my point: you are a Christian heretic, a polytheist, who worships a pantheon of three independent beings.

No, the Christian worships one single being but three separate persons.

Multiple "persons" in one "being" is what HINDUS believe.

Quote:

jtb: Cities are illusions too. They're just names we give to a denser-than-usual blob of buildings occupying a very loosely-defined area. There is no "magic number" of buildings that distinguishes a town from a city, there is no detectable change in physical characteristics when a town becomes a city, and most modern cities have no clear boundaries: they're surrounded by sprawling suburbs, industrial units, and satellite "towns" which have merged with the city even though they retain their old names. A city boundary is just a line on a map, marked by a road sign.

In your world, there would be three cities surrounded by city walls, with no buildings outside them.

No, a city boundary is more than just a line on a map. It determines where you live, how much tax you pay, who rules over you, and etc.

A city boundary doesn't "determine where you live", it merely puts a label on where you live. Houses don't move if the boundary is redrawn.

And issues such as tax are determined by the line on the map, and not any tangible feature of the terrain.

You still haven't explained why there are more than three cities.

Ed · 11-17-2004, 09:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

Ed: No, the Trinity is three separate persons with one divine essence. This is how Athanasius formulated it from the scriptures.

jtb: And some of the ancient Greeks believed the same about their gods: that, despite being "separate persons", they shared the same "divine essence".

The Greeks were polytheists. So are you.

No, polytheists believe in totally separate divine beings and essences. Ie Zeus and Poseiden are two different beings and essences.

Quote:

jtb: Yet it never occurred to you that obviously millions of Hindus couldn't possibly be stupid enough to believe, for thousands of years, that human individuality didn't exist at all.

So, do you now expect us to believe that Hindus are unbelievably stupid in addition to being either insane or on drugs?

Ed: Devout hindus believe that the illusion of individuality is so strong and powerful that only extreme and deep meditation and spiritual exercises can allow an "individual" to experience the reality of total ONENESS. This is basically the whole goal of their religion. This is not the result of stupidity but rather due to millenia of spiritual confusion and darkness.

jtb:...Or, perhaps, centuries of deep meditation and spiritual insight.

We're still waiting for an explanation of why Hinduism CANNOT be true. You cannot use the "we are actually all individuals" argument against Hinduism if "extreme and deep meditation and spiritual exercises" (which you have presumably not performed) are supposedly required to penetrate the illusion..

I have done deep meditation and not experienced any oneness. And so have many other people. But if it is true that we are in reality one, then it should be experienced at least sometimes even when we are not in meditation. Also there are other things that point to it not being true, if we are all one with god then we should not be so concerned about justice because everything is actually being done just by one being, ie the all encompassing god. Also there would not be much concern about right and wrong since we are all one being there is no right and wrong.

Jack the Bodiless · 11-18-2004, 01:30 AM

Quote:

jtb: And some of the ancient Greeks believed the same about their gods: that, despite being "separate persons", they shared the same "divine essence".

The Greeks were polytheists. So are you.

No, polytheists believe in totally separate divine beings and essences. Ie Zeus and Poseiden are two different beings and essences.

Two different beings, yes. As for "essences": most people can't be bothered to make a distinction between a "being" and an "essence", but some Greek philosophers considered the gods to have a shared essence.

BTW, a lot of Hindus similarly don't bother to make this distinction, and worship individual Hindu deities as separate entities. There's a lot of variation of belief within Hinduism.

Quote:

We're still waiting for an explanation of why Hinduism CANNOT be true. You cannot use the "we are actually all individuals" argument against Hinduism if "extreme and deep meditation and spiritual exercises" (which you have presumably not performed) are supposedly required to penetrate the illusion.

I have done deep meditation and not experienced any oneness. And so have many other people.

...And yet millions have experienced this.

Quote:

But if it is true that we are in reality one, then it should be experienced at least sometimes even when we are not in meditation.

Probably, yes, by some people.

Quote:

Also there are other things that point to it not being true, if we are all one with god then we should not be so concerned about justice because everything is actually being done just by one being, ie the all encompassing god. Also there would not be much concern about right and wrong since we are all one being there is no right and wrong.

You are again reverting to the "Hindus don't believe we have any individuality" argument.

You also aren't applying this to Christianity. If we're all going to be judged by God after death, then why should humans care about justice? It's all been taken care of!

Ed · 11-20-2004, 09:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lpetrich

Originally Posted by Ed
In the essentials of salvation the scriptures are quite clear, but in some of the deeper teachings God wants us to use our brains that is why he gave us one.

lp: Where does the Bible tell us that some things are puzzles intended to test our thinking abilities?

It doesn't explicitly say so but it does say that some teachings require more fasting and prayer and meditation. Also, from nature we know that He has given us intelligent minds and from what we know about God he would not give us such a thing without desiring us to use it.

Quote:

Ed: How is that skulking and hiding? I think He has set the record straight in a clear fashion in the scriptures but sometimes he wants us to work for it. Otherwise our brains would turn to mush.

lp: See above.

And according to that argument, living in Heaven would turn our brains into mush.

No, because we will be living in an entirely new universe where we explore and learn about God and his creation.

Quote:

(Genesis 6: God changing his mind)

Ed: When it says God is changing his mind, it is telling us that God reacted to what was happening among humans at the time.

lp: Which is a good description of changing one's mind.

Not exactly. Reacting and changing ones mind are not exactly the same thing.

Quote:

(The Biblical God non-anthropomorphic like Xenophanes's God)

Ed: Actually in Psalms the scriptures state those very things but still ancient peoples had a hard time fully understanding such things.

lp: But Xenophanes did not find it impossibly difficult to state what he had stated, meaning that the Bible's writers could have done so if they wanted.

It wasn't that the writers had trouble as I stated above about the Psalmist, but that many of their readers may have had trouble understanding.

Quote:

Ed: No, we can do some of the right things but we never do it for the right motivations.

lp: Meaning that we cannot possibly be God's lookalikes.

When we were originally created in his image we did do things for the right motivation but later we rebelled. But we still have aspects of his image in us.

Quote:

Ed: The DOI says that they come from the Creator.

lp: One which does NOT meddle in human affairs, like fixing political contests as if they were football games.

No, it says "appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions". Apparently the God the founders referred to was not only concerned with our affairs but even our intentions!

Quote:

Ed: Actually that article demonstrates quite well how amazingly similar the teachings of the denominations are regarding salvation. Of course, the article also includes some cults which of course are totally dissimilar to the teachings of Christianity.

lp: Very ingenious.

If one throws out all but one view of salvation as not "True Christianity", then of course one will get good agreement.

Well there is only one basic view of salvation and all churches that accept the authority of the scriptures agree on that basic truth.

Ed · 11-22-2004, 09:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

Originally Posted by Ed
Where? You have still failed to provide ONE SINGLE OUGHT from evolution!...

...The scriptures provide many oughts, evolution provides none...

...Huh? Why are you pretending that evolution provides oughts when you KNOW it doesn't?

jtb: Ed, we have established that evolution provides exactly the same number of "oughts" as Christianity does.

And we have been here several times now.

You obviously need to re-read this thread..

Christianity provides 10 basic oughts, ie the ten commandments. Please name just ONE ought from evolution (for the umpteenth time).

Jack the Bodiless · 11-23-2004, 01:23 AM

Quote:

Christianity provides 10 basic oughts, ie the ten commandments. Please name just ONE ought from evolution (for the umpteenth time).

And why is it that we OUGHT to obey the ten commandments?

Evolution explains why we OUGHT to avoid killing each other, stealing from each other, and so forth. This has been explained to you (umpteen times).

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.