Interesting slip, I think you had it right the first time, and that is your perception.
Ah, yeah about that you interpreted what I said as a “slip”. Do you really think I haven’t seen this tactic before? It’s quite common for people of faith to look for words in an atheist’s argument that they can come down on in just this manner. You look for confirmation that the poor atheist is just “angry with god” or “angry and bitter at (fill in the blank)”, and that we deep inside really
do believe in god but have turned against him for some reason. You chose to look at us as a kid rebelling against mom and dad because it didn’t get its ways, right?
First, this seems to be a symptom of this over all “interpretation compulsion” that enables you to make anything into anything that you want it to be.
Second, it is quite condescending and disrespectful. You demand that we respect your world view that is based on nothing substantial whatsoever, but your own imaginations and blind faith, while showing no respect for conclusions that were based on actually trying to learn about and observing the real world.
Third, you thinking this is actually a good tactic, trying to sow seeds of doubt about if we really do believe in god after all; is in itself showing how a faith based mind works. That’s not how you do it, trust me, it’s a very ineffective method. There’s actually a much easier way to make me say I believe in god than to try to manipulate my words against me. Just show me evidence that is actually holding water.
I know nothing about God or any potential afterlife,...that's why its called "faith."
That’s sad that you know nothing, because even about these things you can come to conclusions that are much more likely to be closer to the actual objective truth, than just fumbling in the “blind faith”-darkness. And the best about it is that if new evidence comes up, you will know even more, and can fix earlier errors.
I am fully prepared to do that if there’s enough evidence presented about god that actually holds up to scrutiny. But until then, it seems far more likely to me that god does in fact not exist and that there is no afterlife. It’s not just an option I chose to believe in because I’m a bitter god-hating hag, but because science shows, quite clearly, that it is not very likely that a god and an afterlife exist.
You talk about “faith” here, as if it’s something to admire. It’s not; it blinds people to the objective truth that does not fit into their belief system.
To me, the path toward God and trying to follow the selfless lessons of Christianity, makes sense, to me, even if God does not ultimately exist.
Then why put god there in the first place? Why go with Christianity? You’ve just said here that a moral system can be formed, wanted, sought after and reached, without god! That’s why I reject these teachings, because whatever nice package of “selfless lessons” they offer, they come with the requirement that you swallow the idea of a god that you must worship.
Why do you believe in god? Why do you have faith? You obviously don’t need that part at all, you can make a moral system to live by on your own, it seems, since you admit that the system you
do live by will not crumble to pieces if god turns out not to exist.
If I die and there is no afterlife and no eternal communion with the Creator, none of my life would have been wasted, and I will have improved, at least in small ways, the lives of those with whom I've interacted.
You are right. You are a valuable person; your life is not a waste. I am sure you are a good person, too. So… where does god fit in, again?
"The God of my understanding," is the only proper way for an individual to speak of a supernatural creator that is believed to generally exist beyond the ken of limited human existence.
Or he can acknowledge that it is his own imaginations inspired by writings written by people with their own vivid imagination, and that it has no bearing on an objective reality.
“The God of my understanding” implies that all involved in the discussion should share a belief in this god and that there are just different ways of interpreting this strangely silent god. Such a statement does not really give room for the conclusion that there is no god at all.
It is a limited aspect, subjective perception, that may be incorrect in detail or whole, but it is my perception and consideration. And, no, I have no evidence, just faith. And I don't speak for Him, merely myself.
Why don’t you look for evidence then? Why settle with faith on such an important question?
If God were the psychopath of your perception, then I, as well as the rest of the world has been surely and truly f'ed since it was a mere twinkle in that demon's eye.
Really, there’s no reason for you to feel god has deceived you about this, it shows quite clearly in the bible, but you also have to just look around you at this world and all the cruelty in it. An all loving god allows all this? And don’t give me the free will speech!
So what about these "teachings" inspires your rejection? The supposed source, the teachers, or something about the core lessons themselves which you reject?
I think you may be shorting yourself, there are many life-valuable lessons and guides throughout the mythologies and religions of most cultures and peoples.
Sure. But that was not the question, was it? The question was why I reject these teachings with the implication that a deity is behind them.
Here’s what you said:
TShaitanaku said:
which is supposed to be an assistance to help one become closer to God during this life and to help one live a life that is more in accord with displaying and practicing selflessness and love of our fellow man and God.
I most certainly do reject them as a way to get closer to a deity and as a way to love god because that is just absurd. So, that is what these teachings are mainly about, isn’t it? Then why shouldn’t I reject them in that capacity? I want what is true about this world, and they can obviously not provide that. I don’t automatically reject the words of
humans though, and yes, they can provide some truth about human nature, but such knowledge is hardly limited to religious or mythological writing and legendry.
I, personally, would tend to think that those who out-of-hand reject such as useless and without all merit, do so more out of arrogance and/or ignorance, than considered and contemplative disagreement.
In this day and age you can not swallow those ancient texts or legends whole, they are all children of their times, and are not, as a whole, applicable to the life we live today. You can sure cherry pick the nicest, most wise stuff out of them, though, and just use the things that do apply to humans of all ages; yes sure you can. But the thing is that you can do that with almost
any text or legend that exists.
That is not what “teachings” is all about. A teaching entails that you adhere to the whole thing, the bad stuff as well. So, yes, I do reject teachings, which comes with a required belief in deities. I reject them as a guide in my life, and that was what we were talking about. That’s not where I go to seek answers, or what I base my decision making on.
I love the Havamal, there’s some rather wise stuff in that text, there’s also some things that I can’t live by today, or I’d be arrested. So, when people, like Christians, use the bible as a guide, they are also aware that some advice in it would get them arrested, too. So they cherry pick, and then they say about the result that, “this is to my understanding”. But if you can do that, then what is the point at all to use the bible in the first place? You can easily do that with almost any book that was ever written. If you use your own interpretation of numerology, I am sure you can get a perfect moral life-guide and a clear path to god, out of the phone book!
Now, if you want to advocate the use of a particular book at the expense of another, then you have to defend the whole of it, because if you can just pick the parts you want – then
any book will, in fact, do.
But it wouldn't be the first time I've been wrong, please explain to me the depth of your investigation into religions and mythologies and how you have found their underlying lessons and ethos completely without merit.
You also seem to think that what I said means that I have never read these writings, and/or read about them, and that I am incapable of spotting wisdom and speckles of truth about humanity in them, that I am blind to their beauty and entertaining value. Not so. I’ve read the bible from cover to cover, I’ve read quite a lot about Norse- and Ancient Greek mythology, and a little bit here and there about many other mythologies as well. I’ve been interested in religion, mythology, legend and folklore all my life. I’ve studied literature and the history of epistemology at the university, and I have two years in art school behind me. You get a lot of myth by osmosis while doing art.
I’m no stranger to myth, religion and symbolism etc. But these are all mirrors of people’s experiences, and perceptions of the world, most of them in times when knowledge was lacking and the gaps needed to be filled in with… whatever, really. It is not the real objective truth, but people’s perception of it. I can study that, and enjoy that, and gain a whole lot of understanding about human thinking and behaviour. But I do not want to base my life on it, and to have that sort of faith in its ability to do what you mentioned above; seems weird to me, to say the least. I prefer to go directly to the source and base my life on scientifically acquired knowledge. Such a thing as morality is not excluded from my world view. It is entirely possible to live a moral life without faith, religious teachings and god, as you so plainly stated yourself above.
I didn't claim that anyone's interpretation was wrong,
That was QUITE the implication.
merely that they don't match my understandings, nor, for that matter, the understandings of a great many Christians. IMO, the caricature Grayman rejects, deserves rejection, as it has no logically consistent foundation in either the universe we observe or proper scriptural exegesis.
With the implication that your understandings are not “quaint and amusing” but ever so much more sophisticated, yes.
And what caricature? He took those things directly from the book. If you think he took them out of context, OK, that is one thing, but that is a far cry from a caricature.
And the number of people thinking something; is not a reliable measure of the truth of it. Besides there are ever as many Christians who do take the bible quite literally (at least the parts where it benefits them). You have still not explained why we should consider your understanding of Christianity instead of theirs. Yours is much nicer, oh yes, but is it truer? You see, that’s what we are after, the actual truth! You don’t want to discuss any truth it seems; you just want us to respect your faith that you reached on as arbitrarily and unsubstantiated premises as all others who claim faith in something.
Then we differ not at all. Science, as we currently understand it, after all, is a Christian invention developed over centuries of refinement to study, categorize and understand the nature of creation.
WOW
OK, I see that others have already addressed this in a much better way than I could have. Read them again!
The God of my understanding does not put voices into people's heads, certainly not threats.
Do you ever actually question your understandings? Do you ever test them against anything in the real world?
Claims of supernatural cannot be evidenced or proofed within, or by the natural.
Why not? There are a whole lot of things about religious claims that can be tested.
I don't know if the supernatural exists, and certainly would be foolish enough to try and apply science to a task it is not equipped (or designed) to address.
How do you figure this? If a claim is made we can most of the time test it.
he only thing I can tell you about my religion are my faith, my beliefs, and how these shape and guide my life. There are no proofs or empiric evidences to support the first, and only weak and largely circular supports for the second. As to the third, I'd be happy to share the anecdotes, but they are unlikely to persuade anyone of anything that they are not already open to.
I’m always open to evidence.
Please understand, I didn't enter this discussion to attack or convert anyone.
That does not make what you
do say immune from questioning.
I was merely interested in defending against the apparent presumption by some that the caricature strawmen typically thrown out do not accurate reflect all who possess faith in a religion.
We already know that people claim to believe in countless versions of the largest religious faiths. I still do not see why one should be considered more than another.
Who's to say that a thousand different interpretations are not the right way to do so? There are several different "proper" interpretations for every scritural passage,
There are accepted historical writing and socio-cultural exegesis methodologies, that are applicable whether we are talking about ancient Egyptian papyrii, Cuneform tablets or Hebrew scripture. These proper methodolgies of interpretation and understanding are generally recognized as applicable regardless of the type of historic document one is trying to interpret and understand.
I’d say that an interpretation of a flawed source can be as diversified, as complicated, as contemplative, as accepted and as authoritive as it can ever be – it’s still does not make it any more valid.
it is generally only through the understanding of these differing interpretations and individual consideration and contemplation of them that an individual is capable of coming to an individual understanding of message(s) which the author(s) were attempting to convey.
Or you can just, like, I don’t know… read what they actually wrote and take their words for it? You seem to think that smart and sophisticated means to take a rather plain and straightforward text and interpret the hell out if it, the more contradictory to the original the better.
And many interpretations are about mistranslations anyway, the message as a whole is quite clear. And if you were really as keen on putting things in context as you say you are, then you would acknowledge that the bible was written in a time where people lack the knowledge that we have today. Their texts aren’t mysteries to solve, hidden wisdoms to contemplate, and teachings to apply to our times, they just didn’t know better on many things.
Again, the perception of condescension and arrogance are more in your perception/projection, than in my intention. Those out-of-context, literalist translations are very simplistic, generally improper and I do find the employment of these in a apparent attempt to discredit a more historic and sociologically appropriate interpretation to be amusing.
There it is again. Now, let’s say that poor grayman is too uneducated and intellectually challenged to get this, poor guy. Then he’s just quaint and amusing, isn’t he? Nooo, that’s not condescending at all.
It is rather the equivilant of someone arguing that a given algebraic equation is wrong because you cannot divde letters of the alphabet, they aren't numbers.
I would say it is rather not equivalent of that at all.
The most import aspect of interpretation is known as "context." Cherry-picking and pulling passages out of the context within which they were written is no more proper in scriptural exegesis than it is scientific debate/discussion.
And what in the way you interpret things to come to your “understanding of god” is NOT actually the very same thing as cherry picking and taking things out of context?
Not sarcastic, both literalism and fundementalism refer to a manner of interpretation, thought and belief, not a merely a particular or specific brand of religion, and no I can't see that Grayman is not a believer,
Do you honestly think I’ll believe that you did not understand that grayman was criticising the bible and not advocating it?
actually you both strike me as quite firmly convicted believers, or bleevers, you just reject religious theism.
Well, your perception is entirely wrong. All I need is evidence that holds water, that’s all. Really, it is.
