Interesting point about Paul. His head was certainly no more messed up than mine, just in different ways.
Also an interesting point about John. It had never occurred to me to discard it because of the idealism. See, I discard the cruel, violent stuff as unnecessary to how I want to treat people. Are you suggesting I disregard the treat people nice stuff because it’s just so preposterous?
Most people know this stuff? Can any of them tell you the location of this sentinent being. Provide a physical description like on a police blotter? You are describing something like if Superman were a real alien from Krypton. While some people actually do have this view, and they may be the most visible believers, I can assure you that plenty of people have views on it similar to mine. The idea of a God like Superman is utterly preposterous to me.
So “lying” is such the dominant trait of Santa Claus? When you come upon an injured person and you provide first aid, you don’t suddenly become a first aid provider. You are temporarily acting in the capacity of someone providing first aid. You still have your day job, but you are doing something useful and nice.
I gather from your post that you find the tradition of Santa Claus to be nothing more than lying. I also infer from that that possibly you and possibly other people are bitter about the whole Santa Claus thing. It’s a fair inference that you find it immoral to lie to little children about Santa Claus and the whole thing smacks of evil too you. Okay then. I guess that the whole thing is just very painful to you. Santa Claus is not for you, and by extension you are unable to accord that other people may find the whole thing fun and not evil. I don’t like ice hockey. It’s asinine and dangerous. Some people love it. I don’t try to dissuade them.
Yeah…me too! 
Okay. I have lots of trouble with John…and his followers. You do not want to see me react to some shithead who is blocking my view of a game by holding up a sign with the “John 3:16” thing on it.
I consider John 3:16 to be an abomination.
Not in any way.
If anything, I would say: Treat everyone reasonably. And treating most people with love and respect is not only appropriate…not doing so is probably inappropriate.
But do it because you want to treat others nicely…not because some god is telling you to do so!
But as I see it, treating each other nicely is what God is. Not just some God, but as much as I will ever hope to experience of God is people treating each other lovingly. That is what God is. God isn’t a Superman style comic book persona come to real life. Yes, I’ve read this thread and some people refuse to accept that is what I mean when I refer to God because lots of people don’t use it that way. Well, lots of other people do.
Here’s a different translation of 3:16
A different way of thinking about it is as a quality of the life while it is spent. People can ruin their lives by not trusting that a wonderful life is people treating each other lovingly. You might find it less of an abomination that way.
Not sure I get this…but if it works for you and the “lots of others”…go with it.
Your guess about whether or not there is a GOD…and your guesses about what the GOD actually is…are as valid as any others.
Lets see if I’ve got this correct.
The god requires that his only son be given up (tortured and killed) so that everyone who trusts in him may not perish but may have the Life of Ages.
Nope…doesn’t make is any less of an abomination at all.
The part that is an abomination is the part about torturing and killing his son. Why is this requirement (no matter what the ends) a part of the process…an absolute necessary part of the process?
If the god can give the “life of ages”…why not just give it? Why have it earned? And if it absolutely must be earned, why have “killing and torturing his son” be a part of it?
That requirement is an abomination.
Location: heaven, usually. Also, some would assert he’s omnipresent.
Physical description: same image as man. Also, some would assert he has a beard.
I’m describing God as real human people define it. By which I mean, the vast vast majority of the real human people - the exception doesn’t break the rule here.
Objectively speaking, you may believe that God is, er, an intentionally incomprehensible mess? Or whatever it is you believe. Believe he’s a styrofoam cup for all I care - except we’re debating. Which obliges me to point out that the vast, vast* majority of people think that God, if it exists, is a sentient entity that’s capable of holding a conversation. They arrive at this conclusion because it’s inescapably** supported by the bible, which can be reasonably argued as the definitive source on God’s properties. All major Christian religions that I know of explicitly support this interpretation as well, for what it’s worth.
Does this make God like Superman? Technically, it makes him as much like us as it does like superman - in that its definition merely states that it’s a real distinct entity with a mind and opinions, and various other properties. In reality of course it shares with Superman the property of being fictional - but you might disagree on that point.
** okay, excepting for you and your circle of friends - in the I-consider-it-unlikely case that your observation about their beliefs is correct.
The dominant traits of Santa are the red suit, the white beard, the belly, the gift-giving, the cookie-eating, the 8 reindeerpower sleigh, the arctic zip code, the horde of elven minions, and the ability to transcend the laws of physics as needed (particularly the speed limit). And fictionality.
Whereas, lying is a dominant trait of the process by which belief in Santa Claus is propogated to the younger generation. Most people who don the santa suit don’t think they’re actually turining into a man who lives at the north pole and who can ooze down chimney flues. And when a person tells their kid “that’s not from me, that’s from santa” about something that’s from them, they’re well aware that they are telling falsehoods to perpetuate the myth. (Fun, basically harmless falsehoods, but falsehoods nonetheless.)
Let’s see, about your inferences: wrong*, wrong, wrong, wrong, and wrong. Wow, you kinda suck at this whole inference thing. But then you infer that 0.01% of the bible overrides the rest on the subject of God’s definition, so.
In actual fact, Christmas is my favorite holiday, and I’m all keen on the Santa Claus thing. And at our house, we all deliberately perpetuate the Santa myth - despite the lot of us being in our twenties or older. Santa left me some nifty DVD box sets this year, that I’d commented about wanting in my dad’s earshot - and then when his official gift to me was a cheap and useless multitool, did I get all pissy at him for being so outclassed by the $120-ish gift that Santa gave me?
I guess I’d better not leave that hanging, lest you infer up a guess: No, I wasn’t offended. I was actually amused, thanks to my underlying knowledge of how the mechanics of the Santa Claus game is played, and how that meshed with my dad’s thrifty nature to result in a laughably poor ‘official’ gift. Suffice to say I praised the awesomeness of “Santa’s” gift - in his presence.
So I don’t think the Rankin-Bass TV special was a documentary. Oh noes! The criminality of it all! I must be a dark and bitter evil person!
Okay, okay, I know you don’t think it’s a documentary either. (The Santa Clause, on the other hand…;)) Of course the real difference of opinion here is that I think that words have meaning, and that when one says “Sauron”, this term is not equally compatible with a cute fluffy bunny, and one doesn’t become Sauron when they feel especially evil.
No. A very liberal interpretation of this would be quite different.
Focus on it as metaphor (a heresy, but let’s do it anyway). Don’t focus on it as history. It was how these people lived and their traditions. Let’s do it in two parts: we see creation and history and religious tradition as a series of bizarre tragedies saddling us with guilt and having us break laws the penalty of which is death. Abraham was allowed to substitute a goat for his son Issac to make the offer expatiating guilt. Well, that wasn’t sufficient. As many have pointed out in this thread, a literal God would be responsible for every abomination that took place in His creation, even those committed by us. If he hadn’t given us free will, we wouldn’t be doing bad things to each other, etc. What to do with all the people who have been caught and are cast out of society, or in their own minds? Somebody has to pay for the sin under the old system. With their life. God says, “hey, nobody but Me has to die anymore for God’s rules, I’ll take their place at the time of execution. As long as you sincerely regret it and won’t do it again, get moving, I’ll take the punishment.” That is why Jesus dies for our sins. And in this capacity, don’t think of Jesus as a typical Son, he isn’t, he is God himself, the Father incarnated as the Son. (Yes, I am aware this makes no sense outside a religious context, please don’t bother pointing that out, just accept for the purpose of the theology lesson that Father, Son and Holy Ghost are one and the same, like you can accept that sub-atomic particles are both and neither waves and particles.)
That is part one, and it is fairly close to traditional thinking.
Now for part two, which is far less traditional. Obviously our bodies are not going to live forever, there is no perpetual life. All particles will decay in a google years, nothing we know of is forever. It is a misunderstanding to think we will live forever as we now live and we wouldn’t even want to. But, you will enjoy life a lot more if you treat everyone better and drop the self-guilt trip. Work on treating people better and it will be a life of wonderful quality.
That is what I take John 3:16 to mean. In my experience, dropping the guilt and treating people well is a much better path than keeping the guilt, keeping taking advantage of people and seeing the misery.
And where would that be, and can you pick him out of a line up? Can you give me gps coordinates? Can you pick him out of a lineup? Honest to the Flying Spaghetti Monster, there are lots of religious people who freely admit you can’t do these things because that is not at all the nature of what we are talking about. Polls do not actually support anybody but the most hardcore fundamentalists believing that way.
Then you can provide a cite for your assertion that most people believe that way. I am unaware of polls that give the respondents choices and go into detail on this. I suppose that some fundamentalists think as you have posited. But not even all fundamentalists think that way. Very few of the adult religious people in my Presbyterian experience would accept your view of this. Yeah, there are a couple, but honest to goodness, the people like me just humor them. You want to debate a literal fundamentalist, please go find one. It should be really clear that I cannot speak for them.
Okay, you and I run in different crowds. I know a lot of people of varying religious convictions, agnostics and atheists. Even the agnostics and atheists are usually able to grasp, or come close to grasping what I’m talking about. They’ll start with: “oh, you are saying that it is a metaphor!” Which is close, but no cigar. A metaphor isn’t really necessary if you accept that it is the acts and relationships between people that can be considered Divine in nature.
Okay, I’m twice your age. But I think you are almost at the point where you are ready to get my view about Santa: it’s a heck of a lot of fun to get the little tykes wound up on sugar and gifts and running around the house mostly in anticipation, but a bit afterward having the time of our lives. And then asking Mrs. Claus later on that night if she’d like to start enjoying her “Christmas sausage” etc. Or whatever it is you do. Santa is the symbol of all that, the pseudonym by which we perpetuate this madness, etc. I’ll also give you a hint for more fun: expect the actual presents to be less than perfect, it is the anticipation and the picking things out for others that is the most fun with gifts.
Now, extend Christmas to the entire year, and the family of people you get along with and feel safe around to all your friends, subtract the sugar and gifts and just enjoy treating each other really well. When you find that is going on, enjoy it. Don’t make it as a gps waypoint, but make note of who else is there, miss those who have passed on and celebrate the diaper soiling newcomers. Get together as often as you can. Just remember to treat everyone well. That gathering is Heaven. And it is not a metaphor. It is a real gathering.
Anyway, the lesson of Passover is don’t leave the front door open during the dinner hour, because a crazy bum who thinks he is God’s mouthpiece might suddenly join you for dinner.
I truly understand all you are saying here…but you seem to be missing my point.
Why does a god who can forgive offenses…need a sacrifice of any kind in order to do so? Why not just forgive?
And how can anyone make the unnecessary torture and killing of a son (or anyone, for that matter)…be something commendable and edifying?
You don’t have to torture yourself or see anyone else tortured. Someone else, the person you hold responsible for the world not being perfect, has done it for you. People can and do torture themselves and wish death on themselves.
I do not know what in the hell that means…or if it means anything at all.
But if you can explain why the god wanted his son tortured and killed in order to do what he easily could have done without all that barbarism…
…please do so.
I would enjoy hearing it.
Again?
Look, in ancient times, somebody or something (a scapegoat) had to pay with their lives for deadly transgressions and/or to please the Gods. Thus is blood sacrifice explained. Jehovah originally demanded that Abraham sacrifice his son Issac. Abraham was willing to do so, but at the last minute there was a goat stuck in some bushes and God said sacrifice that instead. Thus is the invention of the scapegoat explained. Oh, and it had to be a perfect goat or other animal, no lame or deformed, etc.
With God incarnated as Jesus, he says, hey, all bets are off, you don’t have to do blood sacrifice anymore at all. As long as you acknowledge that Jesus crucifixion applies to you, and that you want to stay on the right path and stay on the right path, than that one perfect sacrifice applies to you and everyone else into perpetuity.
Now, this isn’t going to make perfect mathematical sense, but that is the gist of the thinking behind it. There are others at the SDMB who have the theological thinking down much better than I do.
It’s okay not to get it. As long as you treat people with love and caring, you’ve got the basics.
Torturing yourself isn’t an atonement-it’s a fetish, especially so if you know that you are in no real permanent danger.
Pay attention and just don’t threadshit. Re-read if you have to. We are talking about the people who go around feeling guilty over what they cannot change and ruining their lives with worry. We are not talking about physical self-flagellation and mortification of the flesh. We get it that you personally have no use for any of this stuff for whatever reason. People are asking and I’m trying to explain my understanding of it. I’d ask you to not keep beating the same dead horse, but as you seem opposed to that anyway why are you doing it?
You don’t seem to get it, SS.
I am not questioning that humans thought a sacrifice was required to appease a god.
Of course that was the “in” thing among theists right from the beginning…and in almost every primitive religion.
My point is…since this god demands that kind of thing…why would anyone now want to worship the god.
There is nothing whatever wrong, in my mind, with guessing that there is a GOD (or are gods)…but you (universal "you:) are going to suppose there is a GOD…and that the good is loving, kind, and forgiving…
…why in the name of anything would you choose this god to worship?
Do you finally get that?
Why would you not simply reject this god the same way you would reject any other barbaric, murderous god?
You’re assuming that God is a human invention, which they are free to take or leave. People of faith don’t approach God that way. To them, God just is, and it’s up to them to understand him.
Think of it this way: Consider how many people die from falling – out of windows, off of cliffs, etc. Why don’t you simply reject this barbaric, murderous law of gravity?
Terrible analogy!
People accept and reject gods all the time.
If someone is looking for a kind, loving, caring, helpful, warm god…the last god in the world they should be worshipping is the god of the Bible.
But if you cannot see that…you cannot. Doesn’t make you a bad person.
Live long and prosper!
Dude, you can’t pick me out of a lineup, or provide GPS coordinates to me. This does not mean that I’m an undefineable iuneffeable incomprehensible metaphor. It just means that you have incomplete information. This whole line of argument of yours is absurd.
Polls indicate that most christians don’t believe in heaven? Oh really?
It’s somehow fitting that you defend absurdity with absurdity.
You’re unaware of such polls that give the respondents choices and go into detail on this? What about those polls you mentioned just a second ago to support your opinion on the subject? Oh right, they don’t exist now. They’re heisenburg uncertainty polls.
I’m not seeing a lot of reason to so much as raise a finger here - there’s no point in expending effort just to convince you of anyting. And I seriously don’t think that there are a lot of other people here sharing your perspective on this. Despite your assertion that everyone does.
My styrofoam cup here can be considerd Divine in nature, if you try hard enough - and I’ve recently acquired the habit of describing it as such here on the dope. This doesn’t mean that most people do this.
But let’s not get ahead of ourselves - I don’t think you’ve defined what you think “can be considered Divine in nature” means. We seemed to have just ruled out metaphor, and we’ve apparently ruled out the notion that you mean they’re done by, or in the name of, or in sympathy to some sentient entity. What’s left again? A search/replace on the word “love” with “god”? Or have we ruled that one out too?
Oh yeah, it’s without referent/meaning. Or not?
As best I can tell the only difference between your view of santa and the way other people do it when they dress up in red suits and fake beards is that you’ve bought your own line. And while I can see how literally deluding myself as to my own identity might be entertaining for a while, I just can’t buy that it’s the right way to go.
ETA: That, or you’re just playing semantic games and know it, in which case I have know idea why you’d bother arguing it.
And I’m pretty sure that when most people say they hope to go to heaven when they die, they don’t expect to find themselves dumped into the middle of one of my family get-togethers, composed of people they’ve never met. Because, that thing you said is a metaphor. At least when you’re mixing metaphor up with reality you’re being consistent with your theme, I guess.
Not true.
I would agree that some people who convert to Christianity do so partly because the god of the bible seems compatible with their morality (at least, if you use a modern interpretation it may). But like Tom Tildrum I am of the opinion that most Christians do not consider their religion to be a “choice”, rather they assert that they know that the christian god exists.
Tom’s analogy was apt.
Many Christian’s describe themselves as “god fearing”. If you were to choose a god, you wouldn’t choose one that you had to fear but that’s just it: many christians see it as no more a choice than gravity.
Also it’s a common meme among theists that all people know, deep down, that (their) god exists. “Atheists”, for instance, are just people in denial or who haven’t thought about it enough.