Why be Damned ?

[-Fran-]

LOL, why blame any external source (yet alone a supernatural source) for an internal delusion/psycohosis?

Could it be... no, it couldn't... could it? He did not see the irony???

 

[Trakar]

Promises made from the premise of "you're either with me or against me" is a threat in itself, I think.

This is not the God of my understanding who loves all of creation and never rejects anyone, but who will not force anything upon anyone against their will. God does not reject people, but some people reject God.

 

[-Fran-]

And you believe that these are perfect reflections of God's will, hand-written by God and that they are directed specifically at you and have remained in context and without alteration in literal word and meaning throughout time and translation? Your faith is evidently much stronger and more directed than mine.

Why do I get the impression that you think that you know? I mean, if you believe in a god at all, it makes as much sense to believe this, as anything else.

You sound more strict and literalist than any fundementalist I have ever met! Aside from the fact that, with regards to Christianity, these (above references) are a background cultural history and not truly the basis of our religion, which is found in the New Testament, you, like several others here who seem to have an intolerant chip on your shoulder(s) with regards to other's religious beliefs, seem to base many/most of your arguments upon a naively literalist interpretation/understanding and generalized charicature of those religions, why is that I wonder?

Aha.. And what is the difference between any interpretative reading of the bible and a literal reading of it, concerning level of naivety, again?

 

[-Fran-]

This is not the God of my understanding who loves all of creation and never rejects anyone, but who will not force anything upon anyone against their will. God does not reject people, but some people reject God.

I reject non-existant beings, yes, or rather, I don't even do that, there's nothing to reject. I do, however, reject the teachings in the name of said non-existant beings.

And how can you possibly know that your understanding of things is in any way the reflection of the truth? God paints a rather bleak image of what life, afterlife and eternity would be without him, so bleak, in fact that no sane person who believes in such things would probably want to be subjected to that, so... where is the real choice again?

 

[Trakar]

But if god is all-knowing, he knows there are some people on this planet who require evidence before having the ability to believe in him.

This seems reasonable, but the God of my understanding does not demand recognition nor punish those who know not of Him, neither, however, would He force His reward upon those who did not of free will chose to acknowledge and worship Him.

Christopher Hitchens made a good point about this as well. Based on all the available evidence homo sapiens have been around for approximately 100,000 years. But according to Christians, god waited 98,000 years before actually making this offer, and even then it took 1500 years for this offer to make it to the Americas. Does this make any sense?

(probably closer to 300,000, but that is a nit) I understand the issue you raise, and there may well be other issues that resolve/mitigate these issues, but such would be more the subject of speculation and subjective consideration, than firmly established and widely accepted Christian dogma. Rather like discussing Cheela culture, we can speculate on such a potential, but it is beyond both science and religious consideration to firmly evidence and document such.

 

[Trakar]

Could it be... no, it couldn't... could it? He did not see the irony???

I'm sure it must be an issue of presumption and perspective, perhaps you would care to explain yours?

 

[-Fran-]

I'm sure it must be an issue of presumption and perspective, perhaps you would care to explain yours?

Mine? I was being sarcastic!

 

[-Fran-]

This seems reasonable, but the God of my understanding does not demand recognition nor punish those who know not of Him, neither, however, would He force His reward upon those who did not of free will chose to acknowledge and worship Him.

Why do you keep saying "the god of your understanding?" have you invented your own? Do you have any evidence that the god of your understanding is the right one? Do you have a note signed by god that says you are entitled to talk on his behalf?

ETA:
I mean, if it turns out that god really is the psychopath from the bible, then you might be in big trouble now for making him out to be this peace loving hippie character.

 

[Trakar]

Why do I get the impression that you think that you know?

High levels of backlighting causing you to see your own reflection instead of my words in your monitor?

I mean, if you believe in a god at all, it makes as much sense to believe this, as anything else

Aha.. And what is the difference between any interpretative reading of the bible and a literal reading of it, concerning level of naivety, again?

To some, very little, evidently. But if you aren't interested in trying to understand complex issues and considerations from the perspective of the individuals who hold them, what is your purpose in engaging them in discussion?

 

[-Fran-]

High levels of backlighting causing you to see your own reflection instead of my words in your monitor?

Aw, come on! You are coming here claiming you have knowledge of the true nature of god!

To some, very little, evidently. But if you aren't interested in trying to understand complex issues and considerations from the perspective of the individuals who hold them, what is your purpose in engaging them in discussion?

OK, what is the complex part? We have a man-made mythical figure, about which is said many things. You say that what you say about him is this non-existant being's true nature. Evidence?

 

[grayman]

You sound more strict and literalist than any fundementalist I have ever met! Aside from the fact that, with regards to Christianity, these (above references) are a background cultural history and not truly the basis of our religion, which is found in the New Testament, you, like several others here who seem to have an intolerant chip on your shoulder(s) with regards to other's religious beliefs, seem to base many/most of your arguments upon a naively literalist interpretation/understanding and generalized charicature of those religions, why is that I wonder?

This is not the God of my understanding who loves all of creation and never rejects anyone, but who will not force anything upon anyone against their will. God does not reject people, but some people reject God.

Here's some examples of God's love from the New testament:

Matthew 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.

10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

10:35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

10:36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.

10:37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

24:50 The lord of that servant shall come in a day when he looketh not for him, and in an hour that he is not aware of,

24:51 And shall cut him asunder, and appoint him his portion with the hypocrites: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

25:41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

Mark

4:11 And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:

4:12 That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.

16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Luke

12:5 But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him.

12:47 And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.

Acts

3:23 And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people.

Ephesians

1:5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,

1:6 To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.

5:6 Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience.

2 Thessalonians

2:11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

God is a myth. Like Zeus, Odin, Ra, ....

 

[-Fran-]

To some, very little, evidently. But if you aren't interested in trying to understand complex issues and considerations from the perspective of the individuals who hold them, what is your purpose in engaging them in discussion?

By the way, you didn't answer my question. What is the difference between an interpretative reading and a literal one?

A thousand Christians can interpret the bible in a thousand different ways, which is the right one? And what is the evidence that any of these interpretations are more right than the literal one?

 

[Hokulele]

Heck, just quote almost anything from Revelations. Talk about someone hearing voices in their head . . .


ETA: Sorry Fran, that was directed to grayman.

 

[grayman]

Heck, just quote almost anything from Revelations. Talk about someone hearing voices in their head . . .


ETA: Sorry Fran, that was directed to grayman.

I purposely didn't add the Revelations stuff.

Or were you talking about the voices in my head...?

 

[Trakar]

I reject non-existant beings, yes, or rather, I don't even do that, there's nothing to reject. ?

Interesting slip, I think you had it right the first time, and that is your perception.

I do, however, reject the teachings in the name of said non-existant beings.

That is your choice, and you are welcome to it.
So what about these "teachings" inspires your rejection? The supposed source, the teachers, or something about the core lessons themselves which you reject?

And how can you possibly know that your understanding of things is in any way the reflection of the truth? God paints a rather bleak image of what life, afterlife and eternity would be without him, so bleak, in fact that no sane person who believes in such things would probably want to be subjected to that, so... where is the real choice again?

I know nothing about God or any potential afterlife,...that's why its called "faith." I know what others have thought and said, but they are human and prone to self-delusion and error, as is want to happen. I don't know how any potential afterlife compares to life, but I see many people that are content and satisfied with a life without God and many who claim to have a life with God who don't seem so content or happy.

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. 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.

Rail against the various established church duplicities and hypocrisies all you wish, condemn the con artist and power-monger in priest's robes from the every town-hall, and feel free to shun and deride the Saturday Sinner/Sunday Saint, but know that while all of these may be found within the broad range of the culture of religion, they are not the whole of the phenomenon.

 

[Trakar]

Mine? I was being sarcastic!

And I was asking about the roots of your perspective and the presumptions that induced you to respond with sarcasm, and made you feel that the response was an appropriate comment to introduce into this discussion.

 

[Trakar]

Aw, come on! You are coming here claiming you have knowledge of the true nature of god!

That is your perception, not my statement, turn down the backlighting.

OK, what is the complex part? We have a man-made mythical figure, about which is said many things. You say that what you say about him is this non-existant being's true nature. Evidence?

There can be no evidence of the supernatural by definition, my understandings and considerations are based upon faith.

 

[Trakar]

By the way, you didn't answer my question. What is the difference between an interpretative reading and a literal one?

A thousand Christians can interpret the bible in a thousand different ways, which is the right one? And what is the evidence that any of these interpretations are more right than the literal one?

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, 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.

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.

 

[quixotecoyote]

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, 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.

Groovy man! The truth is whatever I want it to be!

I'm gonna go flap my arms and fly now.
[/quote]

 

[-Fran-]

Interesting slip, I think you had it right the first time, and that is your perception.

Nope!

That is your choice, and you are welcome to it.
So what about these "teachings" inspires your rejection? The supposed source, the teachers, or something about the core lessons themselves which you reject?

That there is no need for them, basically. I also reject Old Norse mythology as a guide in my life, and Ancient Greek Mythology... haven't much need for that one either in that aspect.

I know nothing about God or any potential afterlife,...that's why its called "faith."

And yet, you come here an tell people that their interpretations are wrong. You said to Grayman that he's worse than a fundie with his literal interpretation of the bible. Even if you are not sure about if you, yourself, are right, you are sure mighty sure about who are wrong.

I know what others have thought and said, but they are human and prone to self-delusion and error, as is want to happen. I don't know how any potential afterlife compares to life, but I see many people that are content and satisfied with a life without God and many who claim to have a life with God who don't seem so content or happy.

Yet, you seemed so sure of yourself in your earlier posts

Here are you being sure of things:

If you are hearing threats from the great beyond, I assure you they are not issuing from the lips of God.

which is supposed to be an assitance 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.

--

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. 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.

That's your right.

Rail against the various established church duplicities and hypocrisies all you wish, condemn the con artist and power-monger in priest's robes from the every town-hall, and feel free to shun and deride the Saturday Sinner/Sunday Saint, but know that while all of these may be found within the broad range of the culture of religion, they are not the whole of the phenomenon.

And no matter how nice the rest might be, it can still not provide any truth about our world, and that is what I am interested in. And I don't care in the least what various people with faith think and feel about god/gods. If they come here with claims though, I'll ask them to verify those claims.

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, 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.

Who decide which interpretations are proper, if, as you say, several can be proper? Is there any truth in all this that are the same for everybody? If people want to come to individual understanding of things, sure they are entitled to. But as soon as they use this individual understanding to tell other people how they should view things, they had better have some evidence as to why their view is the right one.

Look how condescendingly arrogant you were in your dismissal of grayman's interpretation, and the "individual understanding" about the scriptures that he has reached:

Your literalist interpretations and displayed sophistication of consideration are both quaint and amusing.

I suppose that interpretations that comes to a critical view of the scriptures are not "proper"?

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.

You said before that:

And you believe that these are perfect reflections of God's will, hand-written by God and that they are directed specifically at you and have remained in context and without alteration in literal word and meaning throughout time and translation? Your faith is evidently much stronger and more directed than mine.

Here you are showing a bit of a sarcastic nature yourself, aren't you? Because you could see that grayman is actually not a believer, couldn't you? You also seem to say here that scriptures does not really matter, so why is the context of this book suddenly of such importance? And interpreting isn't the same thing as cherry picking in this case? Yeah, right! It seems to me you have interpreted away all the bad cruel stuff in the bible, how's that for cherry picking?

There can be no evidence of the supernatural by definition, my understandings and considerations are based upon faith.

That's where we differ. My world view is based on scientific evidence.