Look, sorry for the dismissive answers. I’m just not in the mood, at the moment, to “debate” the plausibility of things that are scientifically impossible.
In other words, you have to apply the same standard to Jesus as you do Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster. If a supernatural claim has any meaning, it must pass certain standards. Thus far, I’m not aware of any, from any category, that have.
It’s possible to excuse the “bad” laws from the early days as being situationally necessary, the same way we accept the U.S. Constitution as a really damn fine work of law-giving…even if it does incorporate slavery. It couldn’t have come into existence at all without it.
What we get to learn from this is that the Bible isn’t the only source of morality – and that’s a good thing (otherwise there’d be a lot of stones flying through the air.) Morality also comes from contemplation and study and rational assessment of pros and cons.
The Bible says gays are abominable. Real life experience shows us they aren’t. They’re just people, an awful lot like everybody else. Those two guys over there, married to each other, aren’t doing any harm to anyone. The Bible must have gotten it wrong.
For goodness’ sake, accept it! Take the good with the good! The fact that they aren’t trying to pass a constitutional amendment to put gays in death camps (well, okay, some of them actually are…) is great!
But you’re engaging in circular reasoning by saying that what is “scientifically possible” is “all that is possible.” You are only ruling out miracles by personal fiat.
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your science.
I am ruling out miracles by the fact that there is not one single documented case has ever existed.
1: Past performance is not a guarantee of future results.
2: You cannot absolutely rule out the possibility of undocumented miracles.
Look, you’re right: the supernatural is a load of hooey. But it’s bad form to be on the attack all the time in every discussion of theology. Play the game. Enter into the spirit. Don’t be one of those guys who argues with the premise of every single one of Skald The Rhymer’s really weird-ass polls.
Also, be upfront and admit your postulates. You’re relying on the “scientific package” of philosophical postulates, such as “The world is real,” “Cause precedes effect and is related to it,” “Observations can be sufficiently accurate for the purposes of knowledge,” and so on. These are postulates, like “Through any point not on a line there is only one new line parallel to the given line.” Funny thing about curved space-time: the postulate ain’t true.
You cannot prove that space-time is not so twisty as to permit a miracle now and then. You can only assume it. Basing your argument on an assumption is classical circular reasoning.
And Christianity fails on that level too. There is no consistent, coherent reason to think god/jesus will magically feed 1000 people with 6 fish and 4 loaves of bread while at the very same time let thousands of people starve to death elsewhere. If he has magical powers no one needs to be hungry, ever. It is simply small minded thinking to allow this double standard. It is not worth even debating, really. The premise is absurd on the very face of it.
I’m not even an Atheist, technically. I believe some supernatural power had to have been involved in creating the universe. Of course, who created that power? Well, I can’t answer that. There is no way to talk about this topic without arriving a a logical roadblock so I will end my comments on the topic here.
So, you can’t say I am 100% against the idea of a miracle. I am 99.99999% against.
And it is a FAR leap from saying you don’t know what is possible to we should seriously consider whether Jesus cast demons into pigs.
And, if you start to grant Jesus/God/Moses magical powers then you have to do the same for Heracles and Thor and the war god of the Aztecs and every major and minor deity in between.
Here, I believe, you have something worth using as an argument: that much of the Christian faith is logically self-contradictory. God is perfect love…and created Hell. God had to sacrifice himself to himself.
Is God a Trinity? Did Jesus pre-exist? Is Jesus fully God, or lesser? (He even says, at one point, the father is greater than he is. Also, “Even the Son” does not know the day of the second coming.)
You can play the game within the game. You don’t have to be a sniper in the stands shooting the quarterback dead. Just blitz and sack the sucka!
I wouldn’t call the origin of the universe “supernatural,” just because that word has so much mythological freight attached. It’s external to the laws of the universe – for instance, the Big Bang does not violate the laws of thermodynamics (as creationists are fond of saying) because those laws only operate within the universe.
But that’s a really tiny linguistic nitpick, and, while I would not phrase things quite the way you do, I really am far more in agreement with your views than disagreement. I just want to try to maintain a balance, and, most especially, leave room for co-existence with believers. Their faith neither picks my pocket nor breaks my arm – except in the case of those REALLY extreme bastards, who do both!
You’re forgetting that we don’t consider the Founders as deities (well, except for some members of the Supreme Court.) When I was in school, the lower grades didn’t have much discussion of how they screwed up, and I was in the North.
Why would God be bound by the situation? I assure you that monotheism was a lot more difficult to implement than not eating pork.
Our study and assessment is fallible. If you believe a law from the Bible is divinely inspired, and it conflicts with the results of your study, then the Bible wins. Right? Otherwise they truly are the 10 Suggestions.
Right. And following the Bible, way back then, they were stoned to death or worse. Now, supposedly God hates … sin. Killing an innocent person is sinful. But they killed an innocent person, and committed a sin, based on God’s word. If God were Nomad, he’d self-destruct. (Maybe he did.) And it would be so easy to stop this sin by saying - men loving men - nothing to worry about.
Okay, so God didn’t inspire that passage, some schmuck did. So, God is too busy to inspire the schmuck to take it out?
I’ve read the entire Bible. Some of it is exciting. Some of it is boring. Some of it is beautiful. (The creation story in Hebrew is better than any translation I’ve ever seen.) And some of it would make a great porn movie. We can enjoy it even more if we think God had nothing to do with it, since then we don’t have to worry about God doing nasty stuff or letting people supposedly writing his book say he did nasty stuff.
Here is the moderate version of God returned to deliver his message on morality:
Murder. Not good. You shouldn’t do that. Stealing - eh, usually bad. But sometimes okay. Especially if you do it with a fountain pen and give money to churches.
The rest - whatever. Where have I been? I’m on the ten billionth 600 millionth screen of Tetris. You know, this game is really boring if you’re omniscient.
I am only answering you out of courtesy. This is not a backhanded compliment/insult I am giving you. I am honestly simply responding from courtesy from the fact that we have been talking back and forth and you have put effort into the conversation.
I have no desire to go on “snipe hunts” (A snipe hunt or fool’s errand is a type of practical joke that involves experienced people making fun of credulous newcomers by giving them an impossible or imaginary task.)
To me, that is what a discussion about the discussion of the triple divinity of the holy spirit and whether or not it contradicts the idea of the Judaeo god being monolithic. To me, such a debate is a fools errand.
If you want to have such debates, fine, good luck, have fun. Really… but I have no such desire.
I am bloody sick and tired of your response to questions about which sections of the Bible are worth following being “you want us to be fundamentalists.” Especially since I just got done saying you take an ethical position by rejecting parts of the Bible. Obviously accepting the entire thing would like to unethical behavior. Do you think I was calling for this?
Yeah, the Bible is the word of God by a vote of 5 to 2. So, is divorce moral or not? To pick one obvious area where Christians differ. Justify your answer. What frustrates me is not that you don’t believe in the inerrant Bible (only a cretin would believe in that and I’m looking at you, Ben Carson) but that you refuse to say why you accept some parts as inspired and some as not. And Jesus didn’t answer this question any better than his buddies who tossed away dietary laws for recruiting purposes. The writers of the Talmud and Mishnah, understanding this problem, spent thousands of pages analyzing this stuff. You guys seem to wave your hand at it and say that whatever we decide now is right is inspire by our failed Messiah who couldn’t last a week in the Big City. And whose story is the first recorded instance of “I meant to do that.”
I suspect the good was in you before you read the Bible. The counter example for your claim are all the clowns who are way evil and who’ve read the Bible more often than you have.
No devout feudal lord ever did that! Nor did any devout slaveholder. And much of Christianity’s evils was not despite the Good Book but because of it. My family fled Russia thanks to the Cossacks, who were quite devout.
But that is a classic case of special pleading. If someone’s most cherished belief is that the earth is flat, and that all the pictures from space showing a spherical earth are fakes, then sure, you can be civil; there’s no need to tell him he’s an idiot. But there’s also no need to respect his belief. Even if he’s, say, a famed neurosurgeon, you don’t say to yourself that maybe you need to look into this flat earth thing, you say to yourself, “I wonder how an idiot got to be a famed neurosurgeon,” or at best, “Amazing how otherwise smart people can be so dumb in some areas.”
It is IMO perfectly legitimate to disqualify a person from consideration for President if he’s a birther, or a truther, or a climate change denier, and I would guess that most liberals, at least, agree with me about that. If he can believe something that weird, even in just one area, it calls his judgement on any subject into question.
But for some reason, if he believes in people walking on water or rising into the air after they die, well, that’s supposed to be OK. You have to respect that. In fact, if anyone said he DIDN’T believe those things happened, he would have a hard time being elected to a school board, let alone national office, even if he were a Navy Seal with Nobel Prizes in Physics and Medicine. The only exception to that rule is for people who believe things just as preposterous, from even older myths.
The smarter the apologists are, the more it makes my head hurt. I can understand someone with little or no education believing everything in the Bible, if that was how he was raised. But if I live to be a thousand, I will never understand bright, educated, articulate people saying, “Oh, of course Genesis isn’t literally true, of course Exodus isn’t literally true, etc., etc. But the Resurrection, that’s literally true!”
In most debates on this board, the apologists try to make it seem that the typical Christian has a very sophisticated interpretation of the Bible, carefully discriminating between poetry, allegory, parable, and of course the literally true Resurrection. But survey after survey shows that the typical Christian actually knows next to nothing about the Bible. He believes because he was taught to believe, at such a young age that he had no ability to distinguish between truth and nonsense.
That’s too bad, but why should such a belief be respected? Especially when that same typical Christian is likely to ridicule a believer in Dianetics, or demonize a believer in Islam?
Oh well, rant over. Carry on.
/\This
The whole thing was worth highlighting but the bottom line is /\ and I agree 100%.
It’s a great movie.
Sure…but there are no photos of God, to tell us whether he’s a Trinity or not, so no one is stupid for believing in it.
It’s definitely a bummer that people who don’t toe that line are excluded from any real chance at political leadership in the U.S.
But it would also be a serious bummer if a religious test against faith were mandated, and people who did believe were excluded.
Ideally, it just doesn’t matter a whit. I like anchovies on my pizza; the next guy hates 'em. Big whoop. In the ideal. At present, yeah, there’s some trespassing going on. That doesn’t mean the ideal is wrong, only our failure to achieve it.
That, too, is falling short of the ideal.
Grin! Just be kind to me when I burst forth with one of my own rants (which usually have to do with the Star Trek Transporter question.)
Whether or not you accept or reject established science to satisfy religious dogma is significantly more more critical than like/dislike of anchovies.
This is the perfect example* of inclusiveness and tolerance** bending over backwards to accept the most bizarre standards of thought/action.
** Also, I am certainly not making the case for intolerance. Any trait, even tolerance, can be carried too far. I am saying you draw the line here, wherever that is. I am not advocating mistreating anyone.
Get used to it? Because I think you get frustrated that liberal Christians don’t read the Bible as fundamentalists and aren’t troubled by the things you think that we should be troubled by… because we don’t read the Bible literally.
Why do you think that since we still hold some beliefs as continued we don’t believe the writers of Scripture were inspired by God? Do they hold their own biases and issues in their writing? Well, duh. We determine what we believe based upon our community and what we, listening to the Holy Spirit, believe that God is telling us.
I am sorry we don’t conceive to your preconceived notions, but really, we don’t particular care. Jesus called the Church into action, not some writings. The writings are simply that which show us God and may help us understand God’s will. So we may, for example, go out into the neighborhood to help the poor and homeless or advocate for gay marriage or protest against the death penalty because that is what our community of faith feels is God’s will.
What exactly do those people have to do with my own experience? And if those things were within me, why didn’t I do any of those things or believe any of those things until I read Scripture. Are you also going to asset there is only one way to read Scripture and that is the conservative fundamentalist fashion?
Which can mean anything and everything, because there is an infinite number of answers believers say the HS is giving them. Your community is telling contradictory accounts. Today, just from the different Protestant sects alone, there are some 40,000, and it doesn’t end there. Ask each individual inside each of those sects what the HS is telling them.
Take Richard Carrier’s germ theory argument(starting @ 26:30 mark). Instead of JC going out healing an occasion and laying upon the hands, walking on water, helping those that happened to run in to him (and even then only when he was in the mood), think about how useful and helpful he could have been had he told them about germ theory. Jesus, as Carrier points out in the gospels, mentions the Jews come to Jesus and complain that the disciples don’t wash their hands before they eat. Everyone else was also washing their cooking utensils. Jesus argued that one doesn’t have to, and that it was just a human tradition but wasn’t endorsed by God, and nothing we can put into us can harm us, not even poison. What does that say about his divinity or wisdom?
You believe JC was resurrected. Has the HS told you this, or after reading the gospels, this is what convinced you? Maybe a combination of both? What latitude do you give for others in antiquity that also are said to have been resurrected? I’m guessing none for the rest.
Yes, there are tons of different Protestant denominations and they have differing beliefs and ideas. They all (likely) believe they are being led by the Holy Spirit in their community’s search for what God is telling them. And they are all (likely) sincere in that statement. I may indeed agree or disagree with their conclusions, but I am not seriously doubting that they are trying to work out what God is trying to tell them through prayerful consideration, just as my community does - even if we come to radically different conclusions.
I know this bothers you, but it doesn’t particularly bother me (well, at times I do feel that some groups are kind of ignoring what the Holy Spirit is trying to say - in the rush of what is going on around them [slavery in the mid 1800s, homosexuality today], but that’s something for them to work out, though I’ll definitely help them do it ;))
You are reading that story in a very strange (and overly literal perhaps?) way. Jesus’s argument is one is not rendered ‘unclean’ if one does not follow the strict dictates of the Law, which is what Pharisees were alleging about the disciples. And that which you eat doesn’t make you defiled it is that which comes out of your heart that makes you defiled. It’s nothing to do with eat whatever you want and you won’t be sick. It has to do with social inclusion. So very divine and very wise in answer to your last question.
And the disciples probably ate without washing their hands because they, as basically homeless travelers, didn’t have access to water and were hungry.
A combination, yes. The Gospels write it, Paul explains it, and it makes sense to my soul. And I don’t give any latitude to the stories of resurrection for the others, no. I’m a Christian, after all ;).
You omitted the part where I demonstrated that I made no such claim. Your inability to defend your position does not give you license to distort my position.
The words of Jesus are know only through writings created some time later, in a culture without the position that words should be written accurately. Which was standard for the time. So you can’t dismiss the writing, given the lack of support from people at the time.
Your claim is that reading Scripture implies moving to liberal positions. Your evidence is your personal experience. I gave counter-evidence in the people read Scripture and who do not become liberal. I acknowledge your experience, but claim that since we have shown it is not Scripture it must be you.
I have an answer to my own question, to make things clear. What part of the Bible is inspired? None of it. We have no good evidence for the existence of the God of the Bible (any variant) and if we default to it being non-inspired, no good reason to consider any part inspired, especially since so many parts which used to have been considered inspired turned out to be false.
I await a reason you consider any specific part inspired better than the spirit of Jesus tells you so.
See, exactly my point. I honestly don’t want to hurt anyone’s feelings, but I think it’s wrong to ignore stuff like this.
In any other context, someone claiming to be in communication with spirits of any kind, let alone infallible ones, would be dismissed as either a charlatan or a lunatic. But if it’s the HOLY Spirit, we’re supposed to go along with it – even though it’s obvious that this allegedly infallible Spirit gives hundreds of different answers to hundreds of different denominations, let alone other major religions who also claim divine inspiration.
Which is more likely — that there is something in the human mind that tricks itself into thinking it is communicating with an invisible, supernatural entity, or that an omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent God is simultaneously giving dozens of mutually contradictory answers to the people praying to him?
But I suppose anything is possible. I suppose that ISiddiqui might be right, that he is getting the absolute truth from the Holy Spirit. But in that case, he needs to explain why it is only him, or his denomination (although I would bet my house that if a pop quiz were given to the members of his congregation on any given Sunday, the answers about important tenets of their faith would not be uniform), that is so favored by an entity that allegedly wants everyone to know the truth.
Why does it lie to people who are just as sincere and pious as ISiddiqui, when they pray to it? Which is necessary to get to heaven — faith, or works, or both? Should yhou interpret the Bible yourself, with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, or should you conform to the Magisterium of the Church? Should your weekly worship be on Saturday or Sunday? Is divorce a sin? How many of the 600+ laws of Moses are still valid?
Or more famously, should slavery be condoned?
We have here billions of people who acknowledge the Bible as a primary, if not the sole authority, but they can’t agree on what it says. They can’t even agree on whether a lay person is qualified to decide what it says. And yet, they base their faith on it.
I don’t think it would be a close call even if the Bible were free from error, and was generally correct about the very basic facts of science, history, geography, etc. But when it makes egregious errors, not only about scientific facts that any third grader today is perfectly capable of comprehending, but about the mundane events of the alleged writer’s own lifetime (e.g. Luke’s census, or the sequence of Babylonian rulers in Daniel), how can anyone take claims of communication with spirits seriously?
ISiddiqui, let me ask you directly. Suppose I told you that I had gotten down on my knees and prayed with my forehead on an open Bible, and asked the Holy Spirit to tell me whether the Resurrection was literally true. And it answered me! It clearly and unambiguously said, “No, of course not, we thought we made it pretty obvious that it was just an allegory about how being nicer to people would make you worry less about death.”
Would you believe me? What if I submitted to drugs and polygraphs and hypnotism and anything else you wanted, and the unanimous verdict was that I absolutely believed what I was saying? Would you think that I was right, or would you think that I had dreamed it, or hallucinated, or was otherwise mistaken?
Welcome to Christian thought? Though technically we believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father (Orthodox though) or the Father and the Son (Western Christian thought).
I’m pretty sure I’m mentioned time and again, that members of my congregation have a variety of different viewpoints. Some don’t believe in anything supernatural in the Bible at all, for instance (I believe I’ve said this like 3 or 4 times already). All our denominations or individuals congregants coming up with different notions of what God is trying to do in this world doesn’t invalidate our faith that God is working through our communities and conversations. We acknowledge our differences constantly and attempt to find out what God wants from us. And we believe that in those conversations and in that striving that the Holy Spirit moves among us and helps us get to where we need to go. I mean, of course we disagree. That’s part of living in community.
I know you talk about x% of people not having read the Bible, but don’t you think that Pastors, theologians, educated lay people know all of this and realize the flaws and contradictions inherent in the text? I don’t think I’ve said any different. I tend to follow Karl Barth’s view that the Bible isn’t revelation itself, but a record of revelation. I know some others Christians who believe it to be ever more man written centered. Regardless, of course its going to have errors in either view.
You act as if I don’t worship every Sunday with tons of people who believe this same thing. I may say it was 50-50 in my congregation who believe in a physical vs. allegorical resurrection, though I may be flattering the physical resurrection side a bit.
Anyways, I’d be interested in your experience and ask you about it. I’d indicate that I don’t necessarily agree with you, but that doesn’t mean you are wrong or that I’m right. I do know some folks who say they audibly have heard the Holy Spirit, but its been a rare occurrence so I’d definitely be intrigued by what you have to say about it. I always enjoy civil Holy conversation, and FWIW, believe the Holy Spirit moves through that as well.