First I would say that the bible is not absolute about any of these. When the Jews went into a land they wanted and it was occupied by others they murdered the people living their and stole the land and property. Sometimes they kept the virgin women “for themselves” which may or may not have included cheating on one’s significant other, but right from the start it seems 2/3 of your “EMAs” are shot to hell. FWIW, I don’t recall your god ever getting bent about anyone’s polygamy either.
My bible uses the words “stubborn children,” I don’t see “youthful repeat offenders” anywhere. Are you sure that is an interpretation, or is it just something you made up? Regardless, when I think of “Moral Absolutes,” I think of morals that are supposed to transcend time and culture. It seems you don’t. So what’s absolute about the morals given to you by god if they frequently become outdated?
I posted verses. I think they speak for themselves. If I think I need to expound upon them I will. If you don’t think the verses I quoted are appropriate then you are free to say so. You asked for context, yet I feel I need not type, nor cut and paste, anything that you can easily look up for yourself.
You can save me some time just by putting my name in the search field.
Again I support my claims as much as I see sufficient. I argue when I am compelled to do so. If you want me to write a full thesis of my thoughts of hell or any other subject you will have to agree to let me bill you for my time, and I’ll demand a retainer up front.
Email Polycarp. He’ll tell you if I know my bible or not.
Please, nobody here is free from bias. From what I have read FriarTed’s biblical knowledge doesn’t impress me. On the contrary and IMO, Tomndebb is the best of the theist representatives, Diogenes the Cynic is the best of the non-theists, but even their biases are apparent.
As I recall, a fairly important distinction between you two was that raindog thinks there is no suffering in hell, while you acknowledge an indefinite though not eternal amount of suffering before god finally murders all offending souls.
I don’t think your entirely objective. In the examples you have written, when thumbing through your Greek dictionary I think you sometimes apply the definition of a given word because it best fits your argument rather than a given passage.
With all do respect Diogenes, I do recall you going on record as saying you like the writings of Jesus thinking of him as a swell guy of sorts. Accepting that his words are more hateful than Hitler’s could be a source of mild cognitive dissonance. Also years ago I recall asking you why you would apologize for Polycarp when it seem obvious that you think he was both mistaken and irrational. Recently on this board you posted that you wife was Christian and I thought to myself, “ahah, now it all makes sense.”
You give **Der Trihs ** as an example, but the link is to a post by js_africanus. Anyway…
**js_africanus’ ** post makes a large logical point. It is also highly abusive, but nonetheless if you think it doesn’t contain any logic, you just aren’t looking. His point is that there is no more evidence for bigfoot, Zeus, Wiccan gods or bad luck coming from black cats as there is for the Christian God, or Jesus, yet those who he is debating with would have no respect for the former, but expect respect for the latter.
If you can’t see the logical point, it’s probably for the same reason [fnord] you feel uncomfortable reading this sentence.
None of us is 100% objective. That includes FriarTed. (I certainly didn’t mean to make him the poster child for this discussion) But IMO, he consistently renders biblical texts as they were written—and seems able to make the disctinction between the text and his interpretation (beliefs) of them. Further, he has demonstrated a willingness/ability to see a discussion from different vantage points, and acknowledge the relative strength/merit of different viewpoints. (In fact, he has himself at times presented those counterpoints) In short, he consistently makes the distinction between the texts and his beliefs; a rare quality.
A humanist viewpoint may be non-devotional in a theistical context, but that hardly means that it is free from devotion to something; whether that be an ideology, or other value system. You can hardly say that a humanist viewpoint is equivalent to no bias—it’s simply a different bias.
And, so if one must provisionally suspend religious beliefs in order to "do any legitimate, critical analysis ", it as also true that atheist and/or humanist belief systems must be similarly suspended.
There must be a distinction between the bible texts and how they are manifested in one’s faith. That’s a lot easier said than done, for the obvious reasons. You would be hard pressed to find a human of any stripe who would be devoid of any belief systen that may potentially color one’s judgement if one is to render what the bible actually says accurately.
And you know, that’s my narrow interest here. I don’t care much if someone here is an atheist. But if that poster posits that God doesn’t exist, and uses the bible as his basis—like the notion that loving God wouldn’t burn someone in hell for eternity—than…I’m interested.
That’s not accurate. I most often stay clear of social and religious threads and discussions—and weigh in specifically and narrowly when parts of those discussions involve bible texts. My interest is fairly narrow, and it involves an accurate rendering of what the bible says. My theological reasonings haven’t been on display here. Further I have not laid siege to your atheism or Tom’s Catholicism. I’ve never said that I had no peer as to biblical knowledge—and in fact the most I’ve ever said about my qualifications is that I am a student. More importantly, I have said many times that biblical knowledge can’t be found on a message board, and that anyone interested in the bible text should read it for themselves. I’ve also said that my posts on the subject shouldn’t be given any more credence than anyone else’s. I’ve said that again , and again. (and actually many other times that I don’t have time to search for)
Actually, I have agreed with your positions many times, and I think your rendering of the bible texts and the use of the word hell in it’s many contexts was superb. I think it added further credibility to tie in the other [non-biblical] sources that are the true sources for the Hell Fire Doctrines.
But while you do not have an agenda as it relates to the hellfire doctrines, it is apparent that your humanistic values color your analysis as it relates to the bible and homosexuality. Once again, it is important to make a distinction between the texts and one’s use of them. I don’t care about your views about homosexuality, and I am not troubled by your atheism. But in my view, your analysis of the specific texts (without regard to doctrine or whether they have any merit in a modern society) were not as scholarly, and seemed to rely heavily on secular sources and your own sense of what is acceptable or not. (vs. an accurate rendering of the author’s words, context etc) (In fairness, I would add that I have never seen a comprehensive discussion of the topic here. The nature of message boards and the many different references in the texts make a discussion like this difficult at best. I also have little time for this thread to be hijacked and head off into that discussion)
I would like to comment on the “cesspool” thing. I regret the use of that word. But I am often troubled at the groupthink as it relates to this place and this ‘fighting ignorance’ motif. If fairness, I think any message board that doesn’t discriminate is going to attract a wide range of people. What troubles me is the constant drum beat that this place is full of towering intellects. I just don’t see any evidence of that, and best I can tell the percentage of genuises isn’t any greater than what you would find on a Chicago CTA train in rush hour. There’s some really bright people, some cretins and a large amount of average stiffs. (like me, for example) Yet again and again I keep seeing posts that extol the towering intellect here. Man, I just don’t see it.
I suspect that there are 2 reasons for this. There are in fact a few pretty smart people here. Yet the presence of a few braniacs doesn’t anoint the the great unwashed, simply by association.
The second is the utter lack of diversity here. Again and again some newbie shows up wanting to talk about evolution or some other topic they’re ill prepared to argue. They’re re always vanquished, more often than not by mob action than intellectual prowess. Look at the threads. It’s entirely common to have 10 or 20 posters posting at a single individual. Invariably there is a single poster (or 2) who have some command of the subject. The majority do not however, and those threads look more than a mugging than an intellectual match. I think the SDMB is much poorer for the lack of diversity, for a vibrant, capable and active counterpoint strengthens and refines both sides of an argument. But this lack of formidable opponents breeds a hubris and arrogance that is not warranted by the quality of the average post.
And so I shouldn’t have used the word “cesspool.” However I wasn’t impestuous. I’ve seen more than enough to know that this is not a source of knowledge as it relates to the bible. (in my view, and with some notable exceptions)
This place is as good a source of knowledge on any topic as the posters who are here. If you know anything about the bible, then this place is as good as your knowledge, at least. The unqualified observation that “biblical knowledge can’t be found on a message board” is arrant twaddle. It can be found on a message boards if people with that knowledge post at that message board.
I find your need to disparage this arena interesting. I don’t know why you do it, but I can tell you how it sounds to me: it sounds like a No True Scotsman writ large.
There are two possible explanations for this situation.
One is that for some unknown reason this board biases to certain viewpoints. Despite the fact that anyone can join and anyone can discuss any topic they wish, for some reason there are rabid mobs on one side and lone voices on the other.
The other is that certain beliefs are very hard to defend from a fact/logic based perspective, which means that anyone who raises them can’t do so, which means they comprehensively lose the debate, which causes them to change their views or go.
Either explanation would give rise the scenario you describe.
The suggestion that certain views are not defensible on this board despite being rationally defensible cuts no ice with me. One of the reasons I love message board debating is that if you have the facts, if you have the logic, you can hold out despite a pack of hostile slavering posters being against you. That is the great thing that message board debating has over real life debating.
My views tend to be quite popular around here, but on James Randi’s message boards I have expressed some highly unpopular views. Sure, you get piled on. You just take your time, and then sentence by sentence, cite by cite, take on your opponents’ views piece by piece. If there’s ten of them to one of you, you just take ten times as long to draft your reply. There’s no time limit, you don’t have to come up with a snappy response.
The “mob action” thing is an attempt to draw an analogy with real life which just doesn’t hold up to scrutiny, and is used all too often as an excuse for an inability to defend a position that is unpopular not because of some weird bias around here but because it is not rationally defensible.
That’s my point. I’m interested in your argument. You made a comment, and cut and pasted some bible texts. I had little more to go on. Rather than being presumptuous, I asked you to cite them in greater detail, including context. I can’t look up your thoughts on the matter—or how you interpreted the texts you pasted.
I must admit I didn’t recognize your name from my previous experiences in GD. Even if I was to do that what will I gain? I asked you to support your comment. That’s not unreasonable. And I should find an answer in your other posts here?..
Huh? You’re on a message board on the internet, man! Not only that, you’re posting with great enthusiasm in a section called “Great Debates.” Did you perhaps take a wrong turn?..I don’t need a thesis, but you made a comment I’m interested in discussing.
You’re kidding right?
You made an assertion. Why don’t you show me you know your bible?
I agree that we’re all biased in some way. It’s also not important whether Tomndebb is more knowldgeable that FriarTed. They’re pretty smart guys. So is DtC.
Actually, I think me and DtC agreed on most parts. From my POV, Hell is simply the grave. And I think there is compelling and substantial evidence to support this.
I gave Der Trihs as one example, and the js_africanus post as another (that’s why I said “as well” at the end of my second post, you see). I linked to the js_africanus post specifically because it was in another thread, whereas Der Trihs had participated in this thread. Hope that’s more clear now.
I did not say that js_africanus didn’t use logic, but it WAS abusive, as you rightly point out. In addition, it makes a lot of assumptions about Jodi, and about Christians in general. I choose to follow a particular religion. That doesn’t mean I don’t have respect for ALL other religions. I know Wiccans…I believe that their beliefs are just as validly held as mine are. I don’t know any astrologers, and because of my PERSONAL beliefs, I wouldn’t seek one out for spiritual advice. That doesn’t mean that I have any negative feelings about someone who does. Most Christians I know are completely fine with anyone else’s religion or lack thereof. Granted, I live in a very diverse and inclusive community, but I am speaking from my experience. In regard to the OP, I see no reason to believe that anyone is amoral or unprincipled until I see hard evidence for it.
js_africanus’ post was nothing more than painting with a very broad and prejudiced brush.
And as far as I know, believing in Bigfoot is not a religious belief, but if it was, I don’t see any reason not to respect that, as well.
You are allowed to use logic. Respecting all religions/beliefs and believing they have equal validity is certainly a good starting point, but if applicable you can use evidence (and sometimes lack of evidence) to change that. I wouldn’t hold it against you if you thought Bigfoot’s existence was less likely than that of your God, for example, as long as you could back it up.
Actually you can look them up. This board as a search feature and I have not been shy about my thoughts.
Yes you probably would.
I do believe your hero FriarTed disagrees with you. Also my point about DtC is not that you didn’t agree on most parts but that you two didn’t agree on all parts. If you want to argue that hell is simply the grave I’ll engage you but for ease of future reference start a new thread with “hell” in the subject line, for this thread is long and off topic enough.
Not being a theologian or a biologist, I am not sure I would be prepared to do that. My ONLY point here is that it would be nice if people (and I’m not talking about EVERYONE) could argue their points without being rude, dismissive, or outright abusive. That’s all.
I should add that I don’t tend to argue the existance or non-existance of God, because I simply don’t find it relevant. Some people will believe, and hopefully find the religion that best suits them, and some won’t. In my mind, it doesn’t matter. I am much better at arguing matters of ethics & morals, because I believe these principles can ultimately be applied to all, and belief in a god/any god is irrelevant. As I said, in regards to the OP, I personally do not believe that faith automatically makes one a BETTER person. We all need to work on that from within. For some, faith can HELP, but it isn’t the ANSWER.
When I participate in the abortion threads, for example, I never argue that “God/the Church is against abortion, and this is where I base my opinion on the matter.” For one thing, it really ISN’T where I base my opinion, and for another, why should I think that my concept of God would matter the least bit to anyone else?
We live in a big ol’ diverse world, and the more we try to understand where other people are coming from (even if we don’t agree), the better off we will all be.
I think most people would agree that debate is best done without abuse or insults, but our ideas of what is an insulting topic differ because of our beliefs. I’ve yet to find a non-thiest who thinks that bringing up the IPU in an argument is insulting; I believe that’s because theists put their God or gods up on a pedestal, and regardless whether they’re right or not to have their deity compared to some “joke” is offensive, when really no offense is meant.
Anyway, merely because someone is offensive doesn’t mean we get to reject their argument. I’d really rather not debate with someone who insults me all the time, but if I don’t respond to their points, that makes me as bad as them - resorting to something other than actual good points to make an argument.
I’ve asked you repeatedly to answer and clarify your on topic assertions in this thread.
Your comments border on the absurd. You made a comment in this thread. Rather than challenge it wholsale (for I perceived it both then and now to be taken out of context and unexplained) I asked you to provide additional context—your thoughts on the matter.
In lieu of an answer you’ve offered me:
That I can look it up for myself. (what that is, I don’t know)
That you need not formulate an answer because of some previous postings of mine.
That I should look you up in the search feature.
That I should ask Polycarp if you know your bible.
That cut and pasted bible texts—without supporting commentary or thoughts of your own----somehow speak for themselves.
That an answer is tantamount to a thesis, for which a retainer would be due.
And of all of this after being told that I should tread lightly for fear of being made to look like an ass!
Forgive me if I perceive a trend here… And now you want me to start a thread on ‘hell’? I’d be pleased to talk about hell! I’d bet that even DtC would contribute! But my experience in this thread is such that I’m not so sure you’ll actually contribute in a substantive way. Hey, I disagree with DtC on many topics but I can absolutely count on him to rise to the occasion. I can’t seem to pry you off the bench and on to the field! I’ll gladly talk about hell–although the thread you refrenced had many cites. Even then, I’d be pleased to expand on them. But why don’t we finish this discussion first. Whadayasay?
Evolution is a poor example. Anti-evolutionists get mobbed because it’s an argument with only one valid side. The same goes for the guy who argued in favor of the biblical flood being true; it simply is not.
As well you should perceive a trend here raindog. I don’t think you’re cool. I don’t much care if I talk with you. I’ve read what you have said in the past and I don’t particularly respect it. If you don’t like that, well, you can suck on it.
I say start a new thread. We are way off topic on this thread and IMO it’s too long already. I am entirely comfortable with you doubting I would contribute in a substantive way. I think I probably will, but if you doubt that, it’s no skin off my back.
I think most people would consider Encyclopedias to be sources of unvarnished facts; reliable reference works. Still, most would agree that even Encyclopedias contain [some] errors in fact. I think I heard recently that Wiki was studied and it compared favorably with older, more established works as to it’s accuracy. They are considered reliable sources for “knowledge.”
I would add that if a person has an earnest interest in the US Constitution—for example—it would be incumbent to go to the source document. From there, it would be reasonable to read other reference works (like Wiki), contemporary writings of the authors of that document, other historical works, biographies, law journals, SCOTUS rulings, consider great constitutional scholars etc. Still, I am hard pressed to see an earnest student—let alone a scholar—that never considers the source document.
But a message board—in my view—can be none of these. It’s a collection of people who come together and kick around ideas. Some of them are pretty smart. MBs serve as a conduit to disseminate information/knowledge but they are not a reliable source of knowledge.
But for the uninitiated, it is imposible to separate the intellectual wheat from the chaff. So, I stand corrected–there is some knowledge here–in fact alot. But it is intertwined with ignorance—enough so that on any given day you are as likely to get a ration of ignorance than you are a ration of knowledge.
So, I’m simply propsing a more realistic assesment of what this MB–or any other MB is— a place for “raucous debates, scintillating repartee, and general good time.” It is long overdue, in my view, that we abandon the general theme that we’ve arrived at the intellectual Garden of Eden.* (pun intended!)*
I haven’t seen it in a while but there is a web site that has all the debating fallacies neatly catalogued, replete with intellectually sounding latin labels. For a while it was popular to answer with nothing more than a hyperlink---- with the appropriate latin term for the sin committed by the errant poster---- as the link. It always made me laugh.
I enjoy the active interchange of ideas-and confess a fondness for the occasional debate. But debating debating as an art form just makes my head hurt. I don’t mind being called on the flaws in my argument. If you want to put a neat label on it, have at it. Color me uninspired.
Well, I would agree with that. And, I see nothing sinsiter about it. Birds of a feather do flock together—people have a bias in favor of congregating with like minded people.
The risk however, is that if everyone agrees with you and thinks you’re a genius you may come to believe your own press clippings. When that happens to a whole group, it is easy to come to the conclusion that you’ve got it all figured out.
A healthy dissenting community would do wonders in my view. It would cull the weaker argumants (and they are many) and strengthen the rest. Instead there are legions of weak posts that go unchallenged that seem to end with self fulfilling accolades and the mantra, “We sent another fundie/ YEC/ Republican/ [insert miscreant of the day here] packing!”
I’ll not to draw an inference here that you do not intend, so I apologize if I understand this incorrectly. But this smacks of the Second Pillar of SDMB Arrogance; the notion that some posters (usually those who are theists of some flavor) or positions are, by definition, irrational. Again and again I have seen arguments that have faith as a component (in whole or in part) and the argument is dismissed as lacking reason, logic or rationality.
(ftr, that’s not to say that many of them didn’t lack these qualities—many did— and many I thought poorly conceived)
That a given poster doesn’t have an ability to present a logical, rational argument doesn’t mean that the subject is irrational by definition. I see irrational arguments from purely rational premises every day here. And both sides of the ideological divide are guilty of it.
I suspect that most beliefs presented have at the least the potential for a rational basis–whether the poster has the brains, experience, or knowledge to present it as such.
Agreed, and I don’t remember saying otherwise.
I disagree. My experience—clear as day—is that many posters formulate their argument on the fly from Google and Wiki. Countless times I have participated or lurked in threads where it was clear that posters had little grasp of the subject and just kept throwing up stuff gleaned from Google. The ability to “hold out” means nothing to me if you’re speaking jibberish or googling the discussion. And it happens all the time.
That cuts both ways. Many times I have wished for an opprtunity to have a real time discussion with a poster here that I was convinced was scrambing to respond with Wiki/Google etc. No time limit can serve as an ally or a crutch.
It also occurs to me that we do this for enjoyment. I don’t dispute that some hardy souls will take the piling on and slug it out. It’s certainly possible to do. It happens from time to time. (I’m an example of that I suppose) The question is, how many are willing to be dismissed, made fun of, ridiculed or relentlessly posted to by a dozen or more posters simultaneously and stick around? How many do you see?
Huh? This isn’t real life? In the previous paragraphs you describe circumstances like piling on etc and then tell me there is no real life parallel? *This is real life! *We’re not role playing like my teenagers like to do. Real people are posting real thoughts and convictions. Real people are accepting praise and criticism from other real people and feeling the appropriate responses. Real people take these conversations extremely seriously and invest a lot of time, research and thought in them. Real people here get angry, irritated, and happy at the things said here. Piling on, and the other pack mentality tactics are felt with real emotions by real people—the majority of which find it unpleasent enough that they don’t return.
Are some of them chased away by some Doper with a superior intellect? Sure! But I suspect the average Doper would find life at the Jerry Falwell Message Board similarly intollerable. The implication that dissenters leave [primarily]because of the intellect here is more of the “we’re smarter than anyone else” mantra. I just don’t buy it.
Welcome to the internet age. Sad as it seems,welcome to real life.
As I said, I must admit I didn’t remember your name here. That’s probably because we haven’t spoken before. But I was meandering through a thread this morning and stumbled upon some of your posts; and it occured to me that you had suggested that I look you up. Now given that I asked you repeatedly to support some texts you posted (and I listed your responses in post #253) I found this comment interesting:
You and I have had a couple of brief exchanges in past threads about Biblical knowledge and meaning. I certainly agree that knowledge does not come from Googling some quotes and expressing an opinion. It comes from studying and research. Still wouldn’t you say that the Bible has a lot of room for interpretation?
Regardless, In this thread as in others, rather than share your insight and knowledge or add context to the verses badchad quoted you chose to ask for context and an elaboration of what **badchad **had already posted. You never actually responded to the original post you asked for a cite for {and he gave you one}
You’ve done the same to me a couple of times. I don’t understand that technique.
If you don’t agree and think someone is cherry picking out of context then how about actually responding {which chad encouraged you to do} Tell us a few specifics of why we’re mistaken instead of demanding more from us without offering anything yourself.
A specific scriptural quote or two sure seems like a cite to me. If you think it’s taken out of context and misinterpreted then please **show us ** rather than simply requesting more.
My ONLY point here is that it would be nice if people (and I’m not talking about EVERYONE) could argue their points without being rude, dismissive, or outright abusive. That’s all.
