Freethought & Rationalism Archive

ohmi · 06-16-2008, 11:28 AM

The scriptures are unique also in that they do not seek for anyone to believe them, there is no need .

elevator · 06-16-2008, 11:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ohmi

The scriptures are unique also in that they do not seek for anyone to believe them, there is no need .

That's good. I treat the bible as any other piece of literature and leave the supernatural out of the equation; and you agree that it is perfectly reasonable for me to do so?

ohmi · 06-16-2008, 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elevator

Quote:

Originally Posted by ohmi

The scriptures are unique also in that they do not seek for anyone to believe them, there is no need .

That's good. I treat the bible as any other piece of literature and leave the supernatural out of the equation; and you agree that it is perfectly reasonable for me to do so?

Reason is an abused and inadequate belief system, but if you are stuck with it then it is reasonable to ignore the 'supernatural' until it convinces you by its means to do so.

As I have said, it takes a long time to be able to appreciate how special the scriptures are , but there is actually no need to understand the apostasy of all religion and the plan of God for redemption , the 'supernatural' will find you when it has use of you through its truth.

But in the meantime, you might like to notice that the term 'supernatural' is not valid , not well-defined [since what is considered supernatural changes as new things become understood , and will do so in the future, just as it has done in the past]

sschlichter · 06-16-2008, 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elevator

Quote:

Originally Posted by ohmi

The scriptures were not written to be comprehended by the many at this time, it explains that. [Much of the scriptures say to whom they are addressed]
God does not require more than the specified few as priests at this time , the many are redeemed later [after death and resurrection frees them from unlovingness of this world.
God undertakes to teach all truth to all men Himself , so the study of the scriptures is in no way required , it is wholly a matter of whether one is moved to understand what the saints and prophets wrote or not.

You have made so many claims throughout this discussion, but you have nothing but your personal belief and biblical quotes to show for it. This is the classical circular argument: "How do you know God exists? Because the bible says so. How do you know the bible is right? Because it is the word of God". There is no evidence that your book is superior to any other piece of literature (contemporary or ancient), there is no evidence that this book was inspired, mediated or authored by God (any more than any other book). There is no evidence God exists at all (any more than any other God). The Muslim, for example, could present the exact same evidence as you for his holy book (Quran) – claiming it is both coherent and consistent in its truth claims; given that it is read and interpreted correctly. If this is correct, then I must remain agnostic, because you claim I cannot understand the Bible and my Muslim friend claims I cannot understand the Quran. If I were to take both of you seriously I must reject both until such time as one of you provide proof beyond the unintelligible. In fact I must reject all holy books making similar claims about access to divine wisdom. In the light of this, can’t we just extract the wisdom from these books as we do from any other book and ignore the alleged divine or supernatural aspect? Afterall, the wisdom is real, but the claim to supernatural authorship, mediation or inspiration is not (at least unproven).

I am curious how you can see wisdom in between claims of supernatural authorship. How much wisdom can you attribute to someone if they make claims that you do not beleive are true? I would think that the supernatural claim would invalidate what I would call wisdom (had I not beleived them).

elevator · 06-16-2008, 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

I am curious how you can see wisdom in between claims of supernatural authorship. How much wisdom can you attribute to someone if they make claims that you do not beleive are true? I would think that the supernatural claim would invalidate what I would call wisdom (had I not beleived them).

You are misunderstanding. Take the biblical golden rule for example. It is easy to see the moral usefulness of this quote without having to believe that it was authored (or mediated) by a supernatural entity. There are many such examples. Many people have profound useful experiences from Yoga or meditation without being a Buddhist or Hindu. Sam Harris, for example, one of the most prominent non-religious authors out there, recognize the usefulness of meditation and self-reflection. There are many beautiful moral passages in Jain writings, but I don't have to subscribe to the Jain faith to realize this. My point is, wisdom within religious writings (and non-religious writings) are in no way exclusive to the believers of that particular faith and you don't have to subscribe to its doctrines to extract this wisdom.

elevator · 06-16-2008, 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ohmi

Reason is an abused and inadequate belief system, but if you are stuck with it then it is reasonable to ignore the 'supernatural' until it convinces you by its means to do so.

How on earth can reason be abused? And how on earth can it be considered a belief system? I would much rather be "stuck", as you say, being able to think for myself and deduct my own conclusion based on the real world; than to live in some kind of emotionalist universe driven by desire, passion and prejudice fueled by the well-known credo: "I wish it to be so; therefore it is so". I don’t consider myself arrogant enough to pretend (deliberately or not) to know something for which there is no evidence. But we have gone through this before; no reason to repeat it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ohmi

As I have said, it takes a long time to be able to appreciate how special the scriptures are , but there is actually no need to understand the apostasy of all religion and the plan of God for redemption , the 'supernatural' will find you when it has use of you through its truth.

You mean it takes a long time to convince yourself of how special the scriptures are, despite a screaming lack of evidence? I appreciate select content from any book, including the bible, but there’s no evidence for the existence of God or any supernatural entity within it. If God, as you say, "has use" for me and reveals himself to me I would regard that as evidence for existence, but until that time arrives (if ever), I find no good reasons to believe in a biblical God any more than the God of any other holy book.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ohmi

But in the meantime, you might like to notice that the term 'supernatural' is not valid , not well-defined [since what is considered supernatural changes as new things become understood , and will do so in the future, just as it has done in the past]

How is the term "supernatural" not valid? American Heritage Dictionary says the following:

Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.
Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces.
Of or relating to a deity.
Of or relating to the immediate exercise of divine power; miraculous.
Of or relating to the miraculous.

I would say that not only is the term well defined; it fits exactly the context of our conversation. Do you have any evidence that would put your God outside those five categories?

sschlichter · 06-16-2008, 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elevator

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

I am curious how you can see wisdom in between claims of supernatural authorship. How much wisdom can you attribute to someone if they make claims that you do not beleive are true? I would think that the supernatural claim would invalidate what I would call wisdom (had I not beleived them).

You are misunderstanding. Take the biblical golden rule for example. It is easy to see the moral usefulness of this quote without having to believe that it was authored (or mediated) by a supernatural entity. There are many such examples. Many people have profound useful experiences from Yoga or meditation without being a Buddhist or Hindu. Sam Harris, for example, one of the most prominent non-religious authors out there, recognize the usefulness of meditation and self-reflection. There are many beautiful moral passages in Jain writings, but I don't have to subscribe to the Jain faith to realize this. My point is, wisdom within religious writings (and non-religious writings) are in no way exclusive to the believers of that particular faith and you don't have to subscribe to its doctrines to extract this wisdom.

Most references in the Bible that are similar to the 'golden rule' that you are describing are associated with the God of the Bible. Ie. "be merciful as your father in heaven is merciful" or "love your neighbor as yourself, I am the Lord". I am curious what use the golden rule is without God. He is the reason the rule is golden, one might say. I find it strange to extract the rule and leave the reason.

However, I understand what you are saying now and I agree that there are probably pieces of truth scattered in between the 'cracks' of history and religions. To me, the fact that a sense of right and wrong seems to pervade all cultures points to the fact that there is a just Creator. If that is the case, then I expect he/she/it should be the object of any meditation whose aim is true wisdom.

~Steve

elevator · 06-16-2008, 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

Most references in the Bible that are similar to the 'golden rule' that you are describing are associated with the God of the Bible. Ie. "be merciful as your father in heaven is merciful" or "love your neighbor as yourself, I am the Lord". I am curious what use the golden rule is without God. He is the reason the rule is golden, one might say. I find it strange to extract the rule and leave the reason.

Isn't is possible to love my neighbor as myself without believing in God? This concept is scattered throughout ancient literature. Pittacus said "Do not to your neighbor what you would take ill from him". Isocrates said: "Do not do to others what would anger you if done to you by others". Versions of the golden rule appears in Baha'i, Confusianism, Hinduism, Islam and Jainism. Why imagine that God is the reason the rule is golden? Couldn't it instead be the moral knowledge of the rule that is golden and such moral knowledge is perfectly valid when treated in a secular context?

ohmi · 06-16-2008, 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elevator

Isn't is possible to love my neighbor as myself without believing in God? This concept is scattered throughout ancient literature. Pittacus said "Do not to your neighbor what you would take ill from him". Isocrates said: "Do not do to others what would anger you if done to you by others". Versions of the golden rule appears in Baha'i, Confusianism, Hinduism, Islam and Jainism.

People could do that, but in practice most people don't , even religious people [until spirit baptism yields all truth -John 16:13- and when given to all men -Joel 2:28- then many will be loving -Rev 7:9-10]

It's not believing in a god that causes redemption to immortal spirit [translation[, it's belief in Love [since Love is what God commanded]

Quote:

Why imagine that God is the reason the rule is golden? Couldn't it instead be the moral knowledge of the rule that is golden and such moral knowledge is perfectly valid when treated in a secular context?

The problem is that people live in denial , many people even pretend to themselves that they are loving to everyone when they are not ... human beings have great skill at lying, even to ourselves about ourselves ... this is why almost all men need to be confronted with all truth by the spirit of truth of God before being able to Love without any unlovingness remaining.

sschlichter · 06-16-2008, 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elevator

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

Most references in the Bible that are similar to the 'golden rule' that you are describing are associated with the God of the Bible. Ie. "be merciful as your father in heaven is merciful" or "love your neighbor as yourself, I am the Lord". I am curious what use the golden rule is without God. He is the reason the rule is golden, one might say. I find it strange to extract the rule and leave the reason.

Isn't is possible to love my neighbor as myself without believing in God? This concept is scattered throughout ancient literature. Pittacus said "Do not to your neighbor what you would take ill from him". Isocrates said: "Do not do to others what would anger you if done to you by others". Versions of the golden rule appears in Baha'i, Confusianism, Hinduism, Islam and Jainism. Why imagine that God is the reason the rule is golden? Couldn't it instead be the moral knowledge of the rule that is golden and such moral knowledge is perfectly valid when treated in a secular context?

I guess it could be but I do not beleive it to be likely. The very notion of a rule (a principle or regulation governing conduct, action, procedure,etc...) makes the existence of God probable. All those examples you gave could very easily lend itself to that possibility. Ie. that God is hidden to us but we see one of his attributes in our own sense of justice. How else do you expect that all men share the same base of moral knowledge. I agree the rule is golden stand alone, but why does it even exist?

~Steve

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

06-16-2008, 11:28 AM	#61
ohmi Banned Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Roaming a wilderness that some think is real ... Posts: 1,125	The scriptures are unique also in that they do not seek for anyone to believe them, there is no need .

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.