Freethought & Rationalism Archive

theophilus · 06-03-2003, 05:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by mnkbdky
Just FYI,

Theophilus: The Bible validates our perceptions, unlike eastern texts, and provides an explanation for such immaterial qualities as logic, morality and scientific principles.

Mageth: So do other religious texts, including Eastern religious texts.

Theophilus: This is simply false. Eastern religions posit the unreliability of sense perceptions (the world is an illusion), the purpose of life is to escape experience, they deny the foundation for math and science, "all is one," all distinctions are an illusion.

Theophilus--friend/lover of God, you are mistaken. It is a mistake to make such broad generalization about Eastern religions in the first place.

Firstly, Judaism, Xianity and Islam are all "Eastern" religions.

Secondly, some Buddhist sects and some Hindu philosophies teach that one should trust there senses. Not all "Eastern" religions teach that life is illusory, only some. Hinduism and Buddhism are very broad categories.

For instance Sankara's advaita Vedanta teaches that "all is one" or the doctrine of non-duality. Duality was illusional.

However, Ramanuja taught that the world was real. Ramanuja did teach that all was God; however, what constituted God was matter and selves. His theory is known as modified non-dualism.

Then there was Madhva. Madhva was a dualist. He believed the world and selves were real, separate from God and have existed eternally alongside with God. However, the world and the selves rely on God for their existence. Life for him is not illusory. It is real and our purpose is to love God and be saved from our sin.

Generalizations are always bad! I have had to learn that the hard way.

Thanks,

--mnkbkdy [/B]

I confess to not being an expert on "far" eartern religions. I was responding specifically to a comment about "texts" and believe that my remarks were accurrate as far as the major teachings are concerned.
Even in the contrary examples you mentioned, I don't believe they share the concept of a personal diety from whom all life came who exists separately from his creation.
I also don't believe that their teachings claim to be revelation, i.e., inspired, from God. They are truths achived through some form of enlightenment which happens when one detaches himself from ordinary consciousness.
This is not the case with the Bible which is presented as direct revelation from God, given to men in the midst of ordinary activities.
Thanks for your comments.

theophilus · 06-03-2003, 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mageth
Nothing? How about, Thou Shalt Not Kill?

That's Exodus 20:13, right?

Look in the following chapter for some sterling examples of Biblical "objective" morality:

21:2 If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing.
21:3 If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him.
21:4 If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself.

21:7 And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.

21:14 And he that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death.

21:17 And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death.

[so much for the objective "thou shalt not kill"]

21:20 And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.
21:21 Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he [is] his money.

I'm not sure what your point is, but my citation was in response to the statement that "there is nothing in the Bible" constraining violence. That was clearly false.

"Killing," is and has always been understood to mean murder, i.e., pre-meditated, non-judicial killing.
The Bible clearly recognizes different levels, i.e., manslaughter, self-defense, military conflicts, judicial punishment, so there is no contradiction.
God's commands that people should be killed in certain cirumstances is a function of his position of creator/lawgiver and does not conflict with his prohibition against murder on the part of his creatures.

It is just this creator/creature distinction, the knowledge that we do not exist of ourselves and are not ultimately in control, which men hope to escape by denying God.

theophilus · 06-03-2003, 05:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Normal
theophilus:

Your logic does not account for the fact that morality existed before the Bible, which means the Bible is not a nessicary basis for morality.

Morality exists as part of the created order. The fact that it is so cannot be explained from a materialistic worldview. The Bible validates and explains the existence of and the nature of this immaterial phenomenon.

theophilus · 06-03-2003, 05:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mageth
Nothing? How about, Thou Shalt Not Kill?

That's Exodus 20:13, right?

Look in the following chapter for some sterling examples of Biblical "objective" morality:

21:2 If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing.
21:3 If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him.
21:4 If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself.

21:7 And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.

21:14 And he that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death.

21:17 And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death.

[so much for the objective "thou shalt not kill"]

21:20 And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.
21:21 Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he [is] his money.

Are you suggesting that there is someting "wrong" with this? What is the objective basis of your judgement?
Is slavery wrong? On what objective basis?
Is capital punishment wrong? On what objective basis?

theophilus · 06-03-2003, 06:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by winstonjen
Which is shown by the bible itself to be a hypocritical example of 'do as I say, not as I do.'

It's true; failure to understand the creator/creature distinction leads to all kinds of silliness.
God's prescriptions for our actions are a reflection of his righteous character. He does not murder, i.e., take life for no just cause. The fact that he has restricted killing by humans to such justified cases, e.g., self-defense, capital punishment, illustrates that he makes this distinction.
The fact that you do not accept his judgement against human sin and his righ to execute the just penalty of death is a position you'll need to justify before accusing him.

theophilus · 06-03-2003, 06:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mageth
So much silliness is right.

God is spirit; man is material.

So then God cannot be meaningfully spoken of as existing.

God cannot be spoken of as having a "material" existence. There is no logical reason to think that material existence is any more real than spiritual existence.

God is self-existent; man is contingent.

And water is wet, and grass is green, unless it's dead. So what? But spirit has no known qualities or quantities, does it? Only speculations about spirit have been made, and they have been made by - man. Therefore, spirit, and god, are contingent on man.[/b]

And water is "matter," and grass is "matter," even when it's dead. Spirit has no known material qualities or quantities. It's only speculation if you know it's not true. If it is revelation, it is not speculation.

Human existence can only be understood in the context of God's purpose.

I and others do a damn good job of understanding human existence without a god in the picture.[/b]

You understand nothing. You speculate, you guess, you posit, but you know nothing. You are part of that which you claim to understand and are lost in solipsism.

Free will, as you posit it, is an illusion; try breating underwater.

Ever heard of Self-Contained Underwater Breathing Apparatus (SCUBA) gear? [/B]

You might want to leave the silliness issue alone.

theophilus · 06-03-2003, 06:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Icarus
Magus55,

I have a problem with the account of Job and God�s testing of human beings in general, other than his manipulation of individual�s lives and the resulting illustrations generated for hundreds of future generations. I do have a problem with such manipulation, but I think Job presents a greater dilemma for the Christian than whether God�s behavior is just. This is the Atheist�s objection. For the Christian, the more pertinent and potentially devastating challenge is in knowing if God�s love is comprehensible.

In order to have a vibrant �personal relationship� with God, the Christian must be confident that God loves her and that his love can be quantified and experienced. The lessons from Job make this task very difficult, in my opinion impossible. If God loves me, what does his love look like? How am I to know that he loves me? Was God loving Job when he allowed Satan to take everything from him except his life? If so, how was Job to know? He might as well have considered himself blighted, as Eli was, when his children were taken from him. He might as well have considered himself cursed, as Pharoah was, when boils covered him from head to toe. He might as well have considered himself betrayed, as Samson was, when abandoned by his trusted friends. So how was Job to evaluate God�s love, given that his condition was just as indicative of God�s wrath as of his hesed?

Fortuitously, posterity has the benefit of knowing God�s intentions, having been outlined in chapters 40-2, so we know what to make of Job�s ordeal. I for one, however, cannot remember the last time God intervened in my life in order to outline the course of events in my recent past and their place in his plan. Not that the type of God who replied to Job has any obligation to do so on my behalf, but how am I to love a god when I do not have the capacity to distinguish his love from his rage or the myriad of happenstance that fills up my life? Similarly, if both my good and bad fortune fall within the realm of God�s love, I no longer have any meaningful measuring device with which to determine what God�s love even is�much less trust that he has my best interests in mind.

I have come to believe that God�s love, as presented in Christian theology, is an empty, meaningless expression encompassing all possible interpretations of every subjective experience one ever has, and Job is the perfect illustration of this truth. One cannot know anything about God through the subjectivity of experience and inconsistency of intention, so one could never learn to love him. It is only when one begins with the assumption of God that one might project his love into given life experiences in such a way as to quell the mind�s questions, but were one to start from scratch, nothing of God�s love could ever be known. This is why you may see God�s love working in Job, but the Atheist never will.

Icarus

Well, you are either ignorant or misinformed.

If you understood Christian theology at all you'd know the answer to your questions.

First, God's love is agapao, not phileo. If you don't know the difference, look it up. God isn't "in love" with his mankind.

Mankind is by nature and by choice in a state of active rebellion against his creator and deserves death for this offense.

People often misuse the term love when they should say "mercy" or "grace." God is merciful to all men in that he has postponed the judgement of death which we all deserve. God is gracious in that he does good to all men which they don't deserve and saves some who don't deserve that.

God's "love" looks like Jesus: the Son who became a servant to bear man's punishment and reconcile man back to God.

Normal · 06-03-2003, 06:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by theophilus
Morality exists as part of the created order. The fact that it is so cannot be explained from a materialistic worldview. The Bible validates and explains the existence of and the nature of this immaterial phenomenon.

What is the purpose of the Bible if morality is already established? Isn't morality self-validating?

mnkbdky · 06-03-2003, 09:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by theophilus
I confess to not being an expert on "far" eartern religions. I was responding specifically to a comment about "texts" and believe that my remarks were accurrate as far as the major teachings are concerned.
Even in the contrary examples you mentioned, I don't believe they share the concept of a personal diety from whom all life came who exists separately from his creation.
I also don't believe that their teachings claim to be revelation, i.e., inspired, from God. They are truths achived through some form of enlightenment which happens when one detaches himself from ordinary consciousness.
This is not the case with the Bible which is presented as direct revelation from God, given to men in the midst of ordinary activities.
Thanks for your comments.

Actually, the people I mentioned are not contemporaries. Sankara lived c. 788-820 CE, Ramanuja lived c. 1017-1137 CE and Madhva lived c. 1238-1317CE.

Both Madhva's and Ramanuja's God was a personal God. Furthermore, they were both mono-theists. Many Hindus are mono-theists and believe their God is personal and the creator of the universe.

Sankara's God was not personal. Again, there are many Hindus who believe in an Absolute or non-personal ground for all being.

Both exist and both have many Eastern followers.

As far as their scriptures go, each one tried to prove their point from the vedas and the upanisads.

Furthermore, many Buddhist sects believe that their scriptures have authority because they have their origin in the Buddha. Buddha did not write them, but they are his recorded discourses.

The purpose of me telling you this, my friend of God, is so that you do not make such general claims or unknowingly make false claims. My advice is, if you do not know much about the topic the best thing to say is nothing. If you can back your claim up with proof or point someone to where they can find such information--in the original source--when challange, then you are safe to comment. If you can do neither of those, the best thing to do is to be silent (Prov. 17:27).

HRG · 06-04-2003, 02:34 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by theophilus
[B]Well, you are either ignorant or misinformed.

If you understood Christian theology at all you'd know the answer to your questions.

First, God's love is agapao, not phileo. If you don't know the difference, look it up. God isn't "in love" with his mankind.

Mankind is by nature and by choice in a state of active rebellion against his creator and deserves death for this offense.

Quoting Christian theology doesn't give you a get-out-of-logical-jail-free card. Atheists cannot be in active rebellion against an alleged entity whose existence they do not believe.

And in addition, rebellion requires that I've promised allegiance, which I haven't.

Regards,
HRG.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.