Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Bluenose · 07-18-2002, 03:49 AM

"David:... People who go to hell choose to go to hell."

Like all those millions BCE who never heard the either-or ultimatum of the NT ?

OR would that be all the millions BDM who never heard the either-or ultimatum of REV. DM ???

Bluenose · 07-18-2002, 10:15 AM

"rainbow walking: The cognitive dissonance created by attempting to live in two worlds simultaneously creates a fundamental schism in ones reasoning abilities. So you latch onto allegory as your lifeline to sustaining your faith in the face of overwhelming evidence ... "

May we add this to our collections of great quotes ?

I would rather a great quote appear on the active topic board than my last post supra.

David Mathews · 07-19-2002, 07:17 AM

Hello excreationist,

Quote:

How can you know that Heaven exists if you don't believe in so much of the Bible? Heaven could be a metaphor for feeling enlightened while on earth or something... surely you are concerned whether Heaven exists or not...

David: I believe that heaven does exist but heaven is not of special concern to myself. I suppose that I can and should love God even if heaven did not exist.

Sincerely,

David Mathews

Anunnaki · 07-19-2002, 07:28 AM

David,
There are many people in the lower forums waiting for answers from you. Some would like you to prove that athiests believe in God and I personally am waiting for you to tell me why I`m so sad and angry.

I understand that you believe a lot of bizarre stuff,but do you think we can`t see you up here while you avoid our questions in the other forums?

David Mathews · 07-19-2002, 07:44 AM

Hello wordsmyth,

Quote:

It is true that muslims consider their deity the God of Abraham. It is also true that muslims generally understand that xians believe that the xian deity is the God of Abraham. However, because of the xian concept of the Trinity, muslims do not consider the xian deity the God of Abraham.

From the muslim perspective it is irrelevant that xians believe the xian deity is the God of Abraham because muslims do NOT accept the xian deity as the God of Abraham because of its trinitarian basis. Conversely, xians generally do not accept the muslim deity as the God of Abraham even though they understand that muslims believe it to be.

Now, are you going to provide some evidence to support your assertion or do you concede and admit that it is fallacious?

David: I do not doubt that there are some Muslims who reject the Christian God, just as there are some Christians who reject Allah. Nonetheless, the Qur'an specifically and explicitly declares that Allah and the Christian God are the same:

Quote:

(Our religion is)
the Baptism of Allah:
And who can baptize better
than Allah? And it is He
whom we worship.

Say: Will ye dispute
with us about Allah, seeing
that He is our Lord
and your Lord; that we
are responsible for our doings
and ye for yours; and that
we are sincere (in our faith)
in Him?

Or do ye say that
Abraham, Ismael, Isaac,
Jacob and the Tribes were
Jews or Christians?
Say: Do ye know better
than Allah?
(Surah Al Baqarah, 2:138-140. The Meaning of the Holy Quran. 'Abdullah Yusuf 'Ali)

If there be any doubt about the implications of the above verses, consider the commentary by 'Abdullah Yusuf 'Ali:

Quote:

138. The alternative is with the question in the last verse. Do you dispute with us although we worship the same God as you and claim that ours is the same religion as that of your ancestors? Or do you really assert that Abraham and his son and his sons' sons, who founded the tribes long before Moses, followed your Jewish religion as you know it? History of course proves that claim absurd. If the Christians claim that these Patriarchs knew of and followed the teaching of Jesus, that claim is still more absurd -- except in the sense of Islam that Allah's teaching is one in all ages.

Now that it is established that the Muslims do recognize Allah as the same God as the God of the Jews and the Christians, what of the belief of Christians' regarding Allah.

In the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

Quote:

841. The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."

My assertion that the God of the Muslims is the same as the God of the Christians is demonstrated from the Muslim and Christian perspective in the above quotes.

Quote:

Additionally, you never answered my question regarding whether or not you believe the events recorded in the bible in which Jesus �casts out demons/evil spirits� are mere allegories or if you believe he literally cast out demonic beings from possessing other people.

David: I believe that these healings actually occurred. I do not know that these people who were oppressed by their illnesses were in reality possessed by demons. They thought that they were possessed by demons, society attributed their illnesses to demon possession, and so Jesus' healings were considered exorcisms.

I am certain that psychologists would attribute their illnesses to other sources and will not dispute with their conclusions. These people had problems and they were released from their illnesses by contact with Jesus.

Sincerely,

David Mathews

David Mathews · 07-19-2002, 07:47 AM

Hello Bluenose,

Quote:

"David:... People who go to hell choose to go to hell."

Like all those millions BCE who never heard the either-or ultimatum of the NT ?

OR would that be all the millions BDM who never heard the either-or ultimatum of REV. DM ???

David: I do not believe that all these billions of people are going to hell. I am confident that God's grace and mercy will save these people without fail as a magnificent display of Divine love.

God has already expressed His willingness to save peope who are not deserving of salvation. Therefore, it seems quite possible that God will save even the atheists -- even if they die while still refusing to believe, acknowledge or love the God that they have rejected.

Sincerely,

David Mathews

David Mathews · 07-19-2002, 07:49 AM

Hello Anunnaki,

Quote:

There are many people in the lower forums waiting for answers from you. Some would like you to prove that athiests believe in God and I personally am waiting for you to tell me why I`m so sad and angry.

I understand that you believe a lot of bizarre stuff,but do you think we can`t see you up here while you avoid our questions in the other forums?

David: Patience is a virtue, Anunnaki. These discussions preceded all those discussions on "Rants, Raves, Preaching, etc."

Sincerely,

David Mathews

David Mathews · 07-19-2002, 07:58 AM

Hello rainbow walking,

Quote:

rw: Of course I am David and challenging your claim that the bible is meant to be taken as allegory. Clearly its authors and redactors had no such intention when they wrote each of the 66 respective books contained in the modern version, (even though many more exist but were not Cannonized into that which is now considered THE version).

I'm demonstrating that you are wrong in your method of interpretation and I also know why you prefer to hover around allegory rather than literalism.

The intellectual disease of theism, when exposed to the light of modern science, has no recourse but to withdraw from the light and does so in many ways. This Allegoricalism is just one way.

David: You are mistaken in saying all of the above about the allegorical interpretation. Jews began interpreting the Bible allegorically two thousand years ago, Christians began about eighteen hundred years ago. The allegorical interpretation was presented by religious people long before science became the dominant intellectual concept.

Quote:

The cognitive dissonance created by attempting to live in two worlds simultaneously creates a fundamental schism in ones reasoning abilities. So you latch onto allegory as your lifeline to sustaining your faith in the face of overwhelming evidence that the primary conveyance of your faith, the bible, has so many contradictory elements to reason that only an idiot would cling to it in any LITERAL sense.

David: The Bible does have contradictory elements. Christians and Jews have known of these elements for thousands of years. Among those Christians and Jews were some of the greatest intellects that humankind has produced.

Contradictions -- as I have already stated -- are a necessary component of any revelation regarding the spiritual realm. Contradictions serve to illustrate the limitations upon the human intellect when it begins to contemplate matters absolutely outside the realm of human perception and conception.

Quote:

You've decided to argue your case with the critic only to realize that your bible disarms your arguments before they get off the ground, so your only recourse is to create illusionary special pleadings of interpretation to allow you, in your infected thinking, to launch what you believe to be plausible arguments. Your methods of interpretation don't jibe with your source of knowledge about that which you claim to represent. As my collegues have continued to demonstrate, your allegorical method strips you of any sound arguments even for the existence, death, and resurrection of Jesus. Without that, you have lost the purpose of christianity. And, knowing the precariousness of the Literalist position, you find yourself struggling to support any of your religious claims and are ultimately reduced to the simple assertion, "yabut, that's the way I want to believe it."

David: Biblical literalism is not the only manner in which Christians have interpreted the Bible throughout history. Christians were interpreting the Bible allegorically long before philosophical atheism originated. The allegorical interpretation was not initiated in response to Biblical criticism.

Quote:

You'll find that the credibility of your arguments suffer everytime you resort to either position. In the final analysis, whichever way you go in the interpretive method, you still lose and will only have "blind faith" as your final friend. Unfortunately, that isn't much of a reason for people with clear minds to agree with you on any of your essential claims. So tell me again, "why are you here?"

David: I have yet to meet an atheist with a clear mind. Are you such an atheist?

Sincerely,

David Mathews

excreationist · 07-19-2002, 08:55 AM

David Mathews:
Some comments/questions:

I believe that heaven does exist but heaven is not of special concern to myself. I suppose that I can and should love God even if heaven did not exist.
What do you think about the passages involving God concerning <a href="http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/intolerance.html" target="_blank">intolerance</a>, <a href="http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty.html" target="_blank">cruelty & violence</a> and <a href="http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/injustices.html" target="_blank">injustices</a>? Is God's infinite wisdom just misunderstood? Or maybe many parts of the Bible aren't really God's word? I'm just trying to figure out why you'd love God if the afterlife didn't exist.

...Nonetheless, the Qur'an specifically and explicitly declares that Allah and the Christian God are the same...
All three religions have the same stories from the early O.T... but Muslims don't believe some/all of the following that Jesus was God, born of the Virgin Mary, died on the cross for the salvation of those who believe, everyone else stays condemned on judgement day, rose again to life after three days and ascended into Heaven. And that God is three persons in one.

I believe that these healings actually occurred. I do not know that these people who were oppressed by their illnesses were in reality possessed by demons. They thought that they were possessed by demons, society attributed their illnesses to demon possession, and so Jesus' healings were considered exorcisms.
How do you explain Mark 5 where Jesus has a conversation with some demons who have possessed a man who beg him to send them into a group of pigs? Jesus then agrees and the pigs drown themselves and the man is cured... Did Jesus make the pigs drown themselves? Or was it a super-bizarre coincidence... or maybe it was just added to make the story more interesting than the usual run-of-the-mill demon exorcism story.

I do not believe that all these billions of people are going to hell. I am confident that God's grace and mercy will save these people without fail as a magnificent display of Divine love.

God has already expressed His willingness to save peope who are not deserving of salvation. Therefore, it seems quite possible that God will save even the atheists -- even if they die while still refusing to believe, acknowledge or love the God that they have rejected.
So you seem to believe that hell exists, but somehow no-one will end up there. Well the devil and his angels are supposed to go there... and in the sheep and the goats story in <a href="http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=MATT+25:31-46&language=english&version=NIV&showfn=on&showxref =on" target="_blank">Matthew 25:31-46</a> there are at least 2 goats. (two bad people) They then go into the fire to be punished eternally based on God's judgement rather than according to where the people want to go.

About early Genesis being allegorical:
What do you think of these passages?

<a href="http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=Exodus+20%3A1%2C11&NIV_version=yes&l anguage=english" target="_blank">Exodus 20:1,11a</a>:

Quote:

And God spoke all these words:

"...For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day..."

If you look at the context, it says that the six day creation is an example for people to follow - to work six *literal* days and to rest on the seventh day. It says God made everything in six days. It doesn't say "according to the creation poem God made everything in six days." It states that he made those things in six days - as if it is a fact.

<a href="http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=Exodus+31%3A12%2C+17&NIV_version=yes &language=english" target="_blank">Exodus 31:12,17</a>:

Quote:

Then the Lord said to Moses, "...for in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day he abstained from work and rested."

Is *God himself* lying to Moses there? Maybe Jesus isn't speaking the truth a lot of the time either.

rainbow walking · 07-19-2002, 10:15 AM

David: You are mistaken in saying all of the above about the allegorical interpretation. Jews began interpreting the Bible allegorically two thousand years ago, Christians began about eighteen hundred years ago. The allegorical interpretation was presented by religious people long before science became the dominant intellectual concept.

Rw: To clear the record David, I never said allegory is a recent response to modern criticism, nor did I say it was a response elicited only from biblical errancy. Allegory has its roots in the early OT prophets. It was formalized by the Jews during and after the Maccabean defeat by the Romans. Their allegory found its voice in the Apocalyptic texts, as did the early Christians eschatological themes in the NT. Both were in response to historical realities as well as Hellenistic Greek philosophies. The point being, anywhere reality conflicted with biblical claims, allegory was incorporated to close the gap. Jewish Apocalyptic allegory preserved the religiosity of Judaism in the face of Maccabean catastrophe just as Christian Eschatological allegory preserved Christianity in the face of Roman cruelty just as modern apologetics attempts to bridge the gap between these same themes and modern criticisms.
The point is, all of it is puerile bullshit because the ancient authors of the existing documents clearly intended their labors to be taken at face value. Are we to examine the historicity of a work based on what we want it to mean or based on what its original author was genuinely trying to convey? Now you may continue this apoplectic redundancy in an effort to con yourself into believing the germ attacking your brain stem is nothing more than a mis-interpretation of its primary carrier but you won�t slip that shit by me.

rw: The cognitive dissonance created by attempting to live in two worlds simultaneously creates a fundamental schism in ones reasoning abilities. So you latch onto allegory as your lifeline to sustaining your faith in the face of overwhelming evidence that the primary conveyance of your faith, the bible, has so many contradictory elements to reason that only an idiot would cling to it in any LITERAL sense.

David: The Bible does have contradictory elements. Christians and Jews have known of these elements for thousands of years. Among those Christians and Jews were some of the greatest intellects that humankind has produced.

Rw: With the most effective imaginations ever incorporated into creating a pressure relief valve to relieve the stress created by the contrast of living as a prisoner between two worlds.

David: Contradictions -- as I have already stated -- are a necessary component of any revelation regarding the spiritual realm.

Rw: No doubt.

David: Contradictions serve to illustrate the limitations upon the human intellect when it begins to contemplate matters absolutely outside the realm of human perception and conception.

Rw: And that is all it serves. One wonders why none of these brilliant minds ever thought of asking if perhaps the contradictions had a basis in reality more than spirituality. Remove the contradictions and you remove the limitations�curious that.

rw: You've decided to argue your case with the critic only to realize that your bible disarms your arguments before they get off the ground, so your only recourse is to create illusionary special pleadings of interpretation to allow you, in your infected thinking, to launch what you believe to be plausible arguments. Your methods of interpretation don't jibe with your source of knowledge about that which you claim to represent. As my colleagues have continued to demonstrate, your allegorical method strips you of any sound arguments even for the existence, death, and resurrection of Jesus. Without that, you have lost the purpose of Christianity. And, knowing the precariousness of the Literalist position, you find yourself struggling to support any of your religious claims and are ultimately reduced to the simple assertion, "yabut, that's the way I want to believe it."

David: Biblical literalism is not the only manner in which Christians have interpreted the Bible throughout history.

Rw: No doubt.

David: Christians were interpreting the Bible allegorically long before philosophical atheism originated.

Rw: Irrelevant. Allegory is the first response to any conflict that arises between religious expectation and reality. Whether it is initiated as a result of biblical criticism or a theocratic power shift or political oppression, if it contradicts biblical expectations it gets allegorized into meaninglessness. It�s the intellectual scapegoat that promotes the furtherance of the religious brain cancer.

David: The allegorical interpretation was not initiated in response to Biblical criticism.

Rw: Not initially no, but it has proven itself a useful tool in plowing new furrows for the sowing of the germ in modern minds better equipped with knowledge and understanding of nature.

rw: You'll find that the credibility of your arguments suffer every time you resort to either position. In the final analysis, whichever way you go in the interpretive method, you still lose and will only have "blind faith" as your final friend. Unfortunately, that isn't much of a reason for people with clear minds to agree with you on any of your essential claims. So tell me again, "why are you here?"

David: I have yet to meet an atheist with a clear mind. Are you such an atheist?

Rw: I�ll let you be the judge of that. Having said this I now point out that your straw man has not relieved you of the burden of supporting your claim that Genesis is an allegorical contraption. I have a sneaky suspicion that bringing your interpretational methods under the microscope of reason will expose a bit more than you�ll be able to countenance in this forum. Just so there�s no misunderstanding I will expose your allegory as nothing more than a tool to alleviate the pressure in ones mind created by the conflict between reason and faith. It was as commonly incorporated in the bible by the priests as it is today by apologists. Here�s a clear example:

Ezekiel 18:2 What mean ye, that ye use this proverb concerning the land of Israel, saying, The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge?

3 As I live, saith the Lord GOD, ye shall not have occasion any more to use this proverb in Israel.

4 Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die

Prior to this time the Israelites believed they were judged nationally by the sins of their leaders. When this became untenable as a religious view, due primarily to their continuous defeat and deportation, we find the god, (who changes not) manipulating their view and religious scruples from a nationalistic to individualistic responsibility to the law, this to preserve the hegemony of the priestly tribe over the laity. Obviously, with so many folks being carted off to foreign soil pickings were getting slim. The priests could no longer count on politics to preserve the status quo so they took matters upon themselves and made obedience to god a more personal responsibility thus ensuring them a steady supply of sheep to sheer.

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

07-18-2002, 03:49 AM	#211
Bluenose Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: small cold water flat Posts: 471	"David:... People who go to hell choose to go to hell." Like all those millions BCE who never heard the either-or ultimatum of the NT ? OR would that be all the millions BDM who never heard the either-or ultimatum of REV. DM ???

07-18-2002, 10:15 AM	#212
Bluenose Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: small cold water flat Posts: 471	"rainbow walking: The cognitive dissonance created by attempting to live in two worlds simultaneously creates a fundamental schism in ones reasoning abilities. So you latch onto allegory as your lifeline to sustaining your faith in the face of overwhelming evidence ... " May we add this to our collections of great quotes ? I would rather a great quote appear on the active topic board than my last post supra.

07-19-2002, 07:28 AM	#214
Anunnaki Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: I`ve left and gone away Posts: 699	David, There are many people in the lower forums waiting for answers from you. Some would like you to prove that athiests believe in God and I personally am waiting for you to tell me why I`m so sad and angry. I understand that you believe a lot of bizarre stuff,but do you think we can`t see you up here while you avoid our questions in the other forums?

07-19-2002, 10:15 AM	#220
rainbow walking Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Erewhon Posts: 2,608	David: You are mistaken in saying all of the above about the allegorical interpretation. Jews began interpreting the Bible allegorically two thousand years ago, Christians began about eighteen hundred years ago. The allegorical interpretation was presented by religious people long before science became the dominant intellectual concept. Rw: To clear the record David, I never said allegory is a recent response to modern criticism, nor did I say it was a response elicited only from biblical errancy. Allegory has its roots in the early OT prophets. It was formalized by the Jews during and after the Maccabean defeat by the Romans. Their allegory found its voice in the Apocalyptic texts, as did the early Christians eschatological themes in the NT. Both were in response to historical realities as well as Hellenistic Greek philosophies. The point being, anywhere reality conflicted with biblical claims, allegory was incorporated to close the gap. Jewish Apocalyptic allegory preserved the religiosity of Judaism in the face of Maccabean catastrophe just as Christian Eschatological allegory preserved Christianity in the face of Roman cruelty just as modern apologetics attempts to bridge the gap between these same themes and modern criticisms. The point is, all of it is puerile bullshit because the ancient authors of the existing documents clearly intended their labors to be taken at face value. Are we to examine the historicity of a work based on what we want it to mean or based on what its original author was genuinely trying to convey? Now you may continue this apoplectic redundancy in an effort to con yourself into believing the germ attacking your brain stem is nothing more than a mis-interpretation of its primary carrier but you won�t slip that shit by me. rw: The cognitive dissonance created by attempting to live in two worlds simultaneously creates a fundamental schism in ones reasoning abilities. So you latch onto allegory as your lifeline to sustaining your faith in the face of overwhelming evidence that the primary conveyance of your faith, the bible, has so many contradictory elements to reason that only an idiot would cling to it in any LITERAL sense. David: The Bible does have contradictory elements. Christians and Jews have known of these elements for thousands of years. Among those Christians and Jews were some of the greatest intellects that humankind has produced. Rw: With the most effective imaginations ever incorporated into creating a pressure relief valve to relieve the stress created by the contrast of living as a prisoner between two worlds. David: Contradictions -- as I have already stated -- are a necessary component of any revelation regarding the spiritual realm. Rw: No doubt. David: Contradictions serve to illustrate the limitations upon the human intellect when it begins to contemplate matters absolutely outside the realm of human perception and conception. Rw: And that is all it serves. One wonders why none of these brilliant minds ever thought of asking if perhaps the contradictions had a basis in reality more than spirituality. Remove the contradictions and you remove the limitations�curious that. rw: You've decided to argue your case with the critic only to realize that your bible disarms your arguments before they get off the ground, so your only recourse is to create illusionary special pleadings of interpretation to allow you, in your infected thinking, to launch what you believe to be plausible arguments. Your methods of interpretation don't jibe with your source of knowledge about that which you claim to represent. As my colleagues have continued to demonstrate, your allegorical method strips you of any sound arguments even for the existence, death, and resurrection of Jesus. Without that, you have lost the purpose of Christianity. And, knowing the precariousness of the Literalist position, you find yourself struggling to support any of your religious claims and are ultimately reduced to the simple assertion, "yabut, that's the way I want to believe it." David: Biblical literalism is not the only manner in which Christians have interpreted the Bible throughout history. Rw: No doubt. David: Christians were interpreting the Bible allegorically long before philosophical atheism originated. Rw: Irrelevant. Allegory is the first response to any conflict that arises between religious expectation and reality. Whether it is initiated as a result of biblical criticism or a theocratic power shift or political oppression, if it contradicts biblical expectations it gets allegorized into meaninglessness. It�s the intellectual scapegoat that promotes the furtherance of the religious brain cancer. David: The allegorical interpretation was not initiated in response to Biblical criticism. Rw: Not initially no, but it has proven itself a useful tool in plowing new furrows for the sowing of the germ in modern minds better equipped with knowledge and understanding of nature. rw: You'll find that the credibility of your arguments suffer every time you resort to either position. In the final analysis, whichever way you go in the interpretive method, you still lose and will only have "blind faith" as your final friend. Unfortunately, that isn't much of a reason for people with clear minds to agree with you on any of your essential claims. So tell me again, "why are you here?" David: I have yet to meet an atheist with a clear mind. Are you such an atheist? Rw: I�ll let you be the judge of that. Having said this I now point out that your straw man has not relieved you of the burden of supporting your claim that Genesis is an allegorical contraption. I have a sneaky suspicion that bringing your interpretational methods under the microscope of reason will expose a bit more than you�ll be able to countenance in this forum. Just so there�s no misunderstanding I will expose your allegory as nothing more than a tool to alleviate the pressure in ones mind created by the conflict between reason and faith. It was as commonly incorporated in the bible by the priests as it is today by apologists. Here�s a clear example: Ezekiel 18:2 What mean ye, that ye use this proverb concerning the land of Israel, saying, The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge? 3 As I live, saith the Lord GOD, ye shall not have occasion any more to use this proverb in Israel. 4 Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die Prior to this time the Israelites believed they were judged nationally by the sins of their leaders. When this became untenable as a religious view, due primarily to their continuous defeat and deportation, we find the god, (who changes not) manipulating their view and religious scruples from a nationalistic to individualistic responsibility to the law, this to preserve the hegemony of the priestly tribe over the laity. Obviously, with so many folks being carted off to foreign soil pickings were getting slim. The priests could no longer count on politics to preserve the status quo so they took matters upon themselves and made obedience to god a more personal responsibility thus ensuring them a steady supply of sheep to sheer.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.