Freethought & Rationalism Archive

lpetrich · 11-23-2004, 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ed

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.

Like the way that Mr. G. wants us to use our sex organs?

And that is contrary to what seems like a message of the Garden of Eden story: that pursuit of knowledge is dangerous.

Quote:

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.

Then that ought to be clearly pointed out, as a simplification for the benefit of those who would have difficulty understanding the full story.

Quote:

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.

What ingenious theological footsie -- trying to have it both ways. Traditional Xian doctrine resembles bipolar disorder:

Mania - We look just like Mr. G., creator and ruler of the Universe!
Depression - We are terrible original sinners, who can never do anything right on our own initiative.

Quote:

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

By defining other views as not true Xianity. Can anyone say "No True Scotsman"?

Quote:

Christianity provides 10 basic oughts, ie the ten commandments.

I thought that it was two basic oughts - love God with all your heart and love your neighbor as yourself.

Furthermore, one can follow the 10C's to the letter and be an absolutely disgusting person.

And why the 10C's fetish? Why not the rest of the Law of Moses, like Exodus 20:26? Which states that one must not climb up upon an altar, because one would expose oneself to it if one did.

Ed · 11-27-2004, 09:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

ss: So all the people with AIDS in africa have it for disobeying god? THAT is the source of your morals?

Ed: No, not all, but probably most.

jtb: Another clear demonstration of the moral bankruptcy of Christianity.

Ed: But you have no oughts, as I demonstrated above if evolution is true.
So how can you say that something ought not be morally bankrupt.

jtb: You have "demonstrated" no such thing, as I pointed out yesterday.

4. Chritianity contains no moral imperatives without secular equivalents: no more "oughts" than metaphysical naturalism provides.

No, metaphysical naturalism and evolution only tell us how things ARE, NOT how they OUGHT to be. For example, using your example, if you kill someone then you are likely to be thrown in jail or executed and not be able to pass on your genes or etc. But this does not tell you that you OUGHT not kill someone. It just tells you the way things are.

Quote:

jtb: And how is it less real than christianity?

Ed: Well what I meant was that the Christian worldview is the real worldview while Islam is a made up one.

jtb: Evidence that Islam is "made up"?

Ed: Most all scholars agree that Islam is an amalgamation of Judaism and Christianity that Mohammad developed while living in Mecca which was a crossroads of Christian and Jewish merchants.

jtb: Most all Muslim scholars agree that Judaism and Christianity contain distorted versions of the truth that was revealed to Mohammed.

Of course, non-Muslims disagree.

But the scholars I am referring to are non-religious scholars, according the atheists they are more objective and accurate.

Quote:

jtb: 6. There is no evidence that Christianity is "truer" than either Islam or Hinduism.

In addition to the evidence presented above, the Islamic god, allah, is inadequate to produce a universe such as ours. It is a diversity within a unity, while allah is a pure unified being.

Ed · 11-28-2004, 09:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

jtb: An "illusion" is still real, Ed. It is really an illusion. We merely use the word to describe a phenomenon where reality is not as it appears to be.

Ed: Exactly and for the hindu the reality is that there are no individual personalities.

jtb: No, the Hindu reality is that personalities are connected rather than separate.

The leaves on a tree are just parts of the same plant, they are not separate plants. But that doesn't mean that the leaves don't exist.

No, they are more than connected, they are ONE.

Quote:

jtb: The minds of mortals work the same way. We are all part of the Brahman, but we have separate personalities, and only deep meditation can begin to reveal the interconnectedness of all things.

Ed: That is right, according to Hinduism with deep meditation you realize that your inidividual personality is an illusion and that ALL is ONE.

jtb: Yes, but how is this an argument against Hinduism?

It may well be true. If you can't see it, then you haven't meditated enough.

Ed: Well besides going against all human experience, no hindu lives consistent with that belief. And if one cannot live at least most of the time consistent with their foundational beliefs then it is likely that their beliefs are not true.

jtb: A Hindu would argue that it DOESN'T "go against all human experience": it is merely not obvious. The Christian notion that the whole world is controlled by an omnibenevolent deity "goes against all human experience" much more seriously than anything in Hinduism does (because of all the suffering in the world).

No, if the universe is not as it originally was created and humans were created with a free will to choose evil then suffering would be expected.

Quote:

jtb: In what sense do NO Hindus live in a manner consistent with their beliefs? Where's your evidence for this claim?

Are you arguing that Christians lead perfect lives?

Because they live as if they believe in justice and if as if they fear being killed by 18 wheelers. But if all is one then these things are just illusions and they should not really be concerned about them.

Jack the Bodiless · 11-30-2004, 03:37 AM

Quote:

jtb: You have "demonstrated" no such thing, as I pointed out yesterday.

4. Chritianity contains no moral imperatives without secular equivalents: no more "oughts" than metaphysical naturalism provides.

No, metaphysical naturalism and evolution only tell us how things ARE, NOT how they OUGHT to be. For example, using your example, if you kill someone then you are likely to be thrown in jail or executed and not be able to pass on your genes or etc. But this does not tell you that you OUGHT not kill someone. It just tells you the way things are.

You're backsliding again, we have already dealt with this.

You OUGHT to obey God because... ???

Quote:

But the scholars I am referring to are non-religious scholars, according the atheists they are more objective and accurate.

Who are these "non-religious scholars" who agree that Islam was invented, but DON'T agree that Christianity was invented?

Quote:

jtb: 6. There is no evidence that Christianity is "truer" than either Islam or Hinduism.

In addition to the evidence presented above, the Islamic god, allah, is inadequate to produce a universe such as ours. It is a diversity within a unity, while allah is a pure unified being.

It is quite obvious that an omnipotent pure unified being is entirely adequate to produce the Universe. This is apologetic babble.

Quote:

jtb: No, the Hindu reality is that personalities are connected rather than separate.

The leaves on a tree are just parts of the same plant, they are not separate plants. But that doesn't mean that the leaves don't exist.

No, they are more than connected, they are ONE.

No, Hindus do NOT believe that individual human personalities don't exist at all. They cannot believe this because it is obviously false. You are STILL trying to use the "millions of Hindus are dumber than a box of rocks" argument.

Quote:

jtb: A Hindu would argue that it DOESN'T "go against all human experience": it is merely not obvious. The Christian notion that the whole world is controlled by an omnibenevolent deity "goes against all human experience" much more seriously than anything in Hinduism does (because of all the suffering in the world).

No, if the universe is not as it originally was created and humans were created with a free will to choose evil then suffering would be expected.

An omnibenevolent deity would at least ensure that no human ever has to experience suffering that isn't a direct consequence of his/her own actions.

Quote:

jtb: In what sense do NO Hindus live in a manner consistent with their beliefs? Where's your evidence for this claim?

Are you arguing that Christians lead perfect lives?

Because they live as if they believe in justice and if as if they fear being killed by 18 wheelers. But if all is one then these things are just illusions and they should not really be concerned about them.

As I've already pointed out, this applies to Christians too. But Hindus (who DO believe they have individual "souls") have reason to fear death if they haven't done enough to ensure a higher position in the next reincarnation. They believe they will be judged.

Ed · 12-02-2004, 09:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lpetrich

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.

lp: Says who?

Jesus said that the Holy Spirit would come after he ascended to teach his disciples more truths.

Quote:

lp: 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.

lp: ???

I think what I said was quite clear.

Quote:

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

lp: She had to talk him into it.

That is because His primary mission was to the jews and he didnt want to get sidetracked. But even so she was not the only gentile or samaritan he helped.

Quote:

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

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

??? Non sequitor.

Quote:

Ed: 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.

lp: 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..

Evidence?

lpetrich · 12-04-2004, 05:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ed

Jesus said that the Holy Spirit would come after he ascended to teach his disciples more truths.

Where?

Quote:

That is because His primary mission was to the jews and he didnt want to get sidetracked.

Where did he say so?

And this implies that Jesus Christ was less-than-omnipotent.

(Talmudic rabbis as great debaters...)

Quote:

Evidence?

You can always try reading some of the Talmud. But even if you don't, every discussion I've ever seen of it indicates that it's full of debates between various Rabbis.

Ed · 12-08-2004, 09:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lpetrich

Originally Posted by Ed
Hardly. Sharia law does not allow for separation of church and state

lp: 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!

Actually the "no true scotsman fallacy" does not apply because there actually IS written criteria of what a true Christian should be like provided by the founder of Christianity. While there is no such thing for Scotsmen.

Quote:

Ed: and Roman law is very anti-women and etc.

lp: No more than much of the Bible.

No, the bible and those who followed its teachings especially the NT lifted women out of many of the oppressive practices of the romans. For example, early Christians allowed women the right of refusal to marriage proposals while the Roman fathers had the last word on their daughters fates.

Quote:

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

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

Read my earlier post and you will understand.

Ed · 12-13-2004, 09:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

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.

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

jtb: 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.

Yes, that is in the scriptures but there is also the concept of "representative justice". And that is the case with Jesus dying for our sins.

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.

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

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

No, the historic teaching of Hinduism is that the personal aspect of being is an illusion.

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.

Ed: 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.

jtb: 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.

It may not determine where you live spatially but it does determine where you live socially.

Quote:

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

Huh? :huh:

Ed · 12-14-2004, 09:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

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.

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

jtb: 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.

Yes, but most ancient Greeks believed that each god was a totally separate being with a separate essence.

Quote:

jtb: 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.

Yes, but the deeper thinking hindu scholars agree with my summary of their belief.

Quote:

jtb: 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.

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

jtb: ...And yet millions have experienced this.

Yes, but see below.

Quote:

Ed: 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.

jtb: Probably, yes, by some people.

But none of those people live as if it is true in the difficult cases such as justice and 18 wheelers.

Quote:

Ed: 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.

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

They don't think individuality is real as I stated earlier they think it is an illusion.

Quote:

jtb: 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!

Because how you are judged after death is partially based on how just you are prior to death and how much you fight injustices.

Jack the Bodiless · 12-15-2004, 03:20 AM

Quote:

jtb: 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.

Yes, that is in the scriptures but there is also the concept of "representative justice". And that is the case with Jesus dying for our sins.

That woudn't be justice.

Quote:

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

jtb: 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.

Yes, but most ancient Greeks believed that each god was a totally separate being with a separate essence.

jtb: 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.

Yes, but the deeper thinking hindu scholars agree with my summary of their belief.

You are merely confirming the similarities between Greek polytheism and Hinduism: many consider the deities as separate, but "deep thinkers" consider them as aspects of the same shared essence.

The Christian Trinity is exactly the same, except that Christians had a tradition of setting fire to those who say that the elements have separate personalities (polytheistic heretics such as yourself), or those who take the view that God is truly one (Trinity-deniers).

Quote:

But none of those people live as if it is true in the difficult cases such as justice and 18 wheelers...

...Because how you are judged after death is partially based on how just you are prior to death and how much you fight injustices.

Please demonstrate that you have SOME understanding of the Hindu "karma" system. We WILL (allegedly) be "judged": our status in the next incarnation depends on our actions in this one.

Why did you simply ignore me when I pointed this out earlier?

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.