Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Theism and Atheism => Topic started by: BashfulAnthony on June 21, 2015, 11:21:04 PM
-
Moderator:
An interesting discussion has arisen on the Muslim topic and it would be interesting to open this up to theists and non-theists alike.
What is unconditional love? Is it even desirable?
Gabriella,
A thought. I am interested to know what the Qur'an says about love. The New Testament is very specific, love being the guiding principle. Unconditional love for your fellow man is not an explicit teaching of the Qur'an. Or, if it is, it is not prominent. If you are a Muslim, please suggest some verses, but please limit it to the actual Qur'an.
-
Gabriella,
A thought. I am interested to know what the Qur'an says about love. The New Testament is very specific, love being the guiding principle. Unconditional love for your fellow man is not an explicit teaching of the Qur'an. Or, if it is, it is not prominent. If you are a Muslim, please suggest some verses, but please limit it to the actual Qur'an.
I don't think the Quran advocates unconditional love for your fellow man - I could be wrong but my impression from reading the Quran is that it doesn't emphasise love - it emphasises doing good deeds, being kind, merciful, humble and just - but I don't think there is any requirement for unconditional love. So people forgive others as an act of mercy or compassion or by being humble enough to be aware of their own failings because that is considered good and also out of love for Allah.
I have to say - the whole unconditional love thing doesn't really do anything for me.
-
Gabriella,
A thought. I am interested to know what the Qur'an says about love. The New Testament is very specific, love being the guiding principle. Unconditional love for your fellow man is not an explicit teaching of the Qur'an. Or, if it is, it is not prominent. If you are a Muslim, please suggest some verses, but please limit it to the actual Qur'an.
I don't think the Quran advocates unconditional love for your fellow man - I could be wrong but my impression from reading the Quran is that it doesn't emphasise love - it emphasises doing good deeds, being kind, merciful, humble and just - but I don't think there is any requirement for unconditional love. So people forgive others as an act of mercy or compassion or by being humble enough to be aware of their own failings because that is considered good and also out of love for Allah.
I have to say - the whole unconditional love thing doesn't really do anything for me.
May I ask why?
-
Gabriella,
A thought. I am interested to know what the Qur'an says about love. The New Testament is very specific, love being the guiding principle. Unconditional love for your fellow man is not an explicit teaching of the Qur'an. Or, if it is, it is not prominent. If you are a Muslim, please suggest some verses, but please limit it to the actual Qur'an.
I don't think the Quran advocates unconditional love for your fellow man - I could be wrong but my impression from reading the Quran is that it doesn't emphasise love - it emphasises doing good deeds, being kind, merciful, humble and just - but I don't think there is any requirement for unconditional love. So people forgive others as an act of mercy or compassion or by being humble enough to be aware of their own failings because that is considered good and also out of love for Allah.
I have to say - the whole unconditional love thing doesn't really do anything for me.
May I ask why?
I like the whole unconditional love thing, but don't find it in Christianity either.
There are conditions to being saved.
If there were none, that's unconditional and it wouldn't exclude people of any faith or none.
Rose, Jesus' death has given the great gift of Redemption. That is unconditional love in action, and all you are required to do is accept Jesus in your life. So, no strings.
-
Gabriella,
A thought. I am interested to know what the Qur'an says about love. The New Testament is very specific, love being the guiding principle. Unconditional love for your fellow man is not an explicit teaching of the Qur'an. Or, if it is, it is not prominent. If you are a Muslim, please suggest some verses, but please limit it to the actual Qur'an.
I don't think the Quran advocates unconditional love for your fellow man - I could be wrong but my impression from reading the Quran is that it doesn't emphasise love - it emphasises doing good deeds, being kind, merciful, humble and just - but I don't think there is any requirement for unconditional love. So people forgive others as an act of mercy or compassion or by being humble enough to be aware of their own failings because that is considered good and also out of love for Allah.
I have to say - the whole unconditional love thing doesn't really do anything for me.
May I ask why?
I am not sure if my reason makes any sense but I think it is because I don't value love unless I have to earn it through words or deeds. I find it unfathomable that someone should love me regardless of how I act. Also I don't think I have a capacity to love unconditionally. Even as a parent, I have a maternal instinct, whereby I would protect my children from harm without worrying about the cost to me, but I am not sure I love them unconditionally - not sure what loving them unconditionally means. I can imagine situations where I would want nothing to do with them unless they made amends e.g. if they deliberately and cruelly hurt someone else.
I suppose it depends on the definition of love. If it is defined as just recognising someone as a fellow human being, wishing someone well without any depth to it, I guess I am ok with that.
-
Gabriella,
A thought. I am interested to know what the Qur'an says about love. The New Testament is very specific, love being the guiding principle. Unconditional love for your fellow man is not an explicit teaching of the Qur'an. Or, if it is, it is not prominent. If you are a Muslim, please suggest some verses, but please limit it to the actual Qur'an.
I don't think the Quran advocates unconditional love for your fellow man - I could be wrong but my impression from reading the Quran is that it doesn't emphasise love - it emphasises doing good deeds, being kind, merciful, humble and just - but I don't think there is any requirement for unconditional love. So people forgive others as an act of mercy or compassion or by being humble enough to be aware of their own failings because that is considered good and also out of love for Allah.
I have to say - the whole unconditional love thing doesn't really do anything for me.
May I ask why?
I like the whole unconditional love thing, but don't find it in Christianity either.
There are conditions to being saved.
If there were none, that's unconditional and it wouldn't exclude people of any faith or none.
Rose, Jesus' death has given the great gift of Redemption. That is unconditional love in action, and all you are required to do is accept Jesus in your life. So, no strings.
Accepting Jesus as God is a string.
Absolutely agree.
-
Gabriella,
A thought. I am interested to know what the Qur'an says about love. The New Testament is very specific, love being the guiding principle. Unconditional love for your fellow man is not an explicit teaching of the Qur'an. Or, if it is, it is not prominent. If you are a Muslim, please suggest some verses, but please limit it to the actual Qur'an.
I don't think the Quran advocates unconditional love for your fellow man - I could be wrong but my impression from reading the Quran is that it doesn't emphasise love - it emphasises doing good deeds, being kind, merciful, humble and just - but I don't think there is any requirement for unconditional love. So people forgive others as an act of mercy or compassion or by being humble enough to be aware of their own failings because that is considered good and also out of love for Allah.
I have to say - the whole unconditional love thing doesn't really do anything for me.
May I ask why?
I am not sure if my reason makes any sense but I think it is because I don't value love unless I have to earn it through words or deeds. I find it unfathomable that someone should love me regardless of how I act. Also I don't think I have a capacity to love unconditionally. Even as a parent, I have a maternal instinct, whereby I would protect my children from harm without worrying about the cost to me, but I am not sure I love them unconditionally - not sure what loving them unconditionally means. I can imagine situations where I would want nothing to do with them unless they made amends e.g. if they deliberately and cruelly hurt someone else.
I suppose it depends on the definition of love. If it is defined as just recognising someone as a fellow human being, wishing someone well without any depth to it, I guess I am ok with that.
Jesus is quite explicit: : 'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and soul and mind, and your neighbor as yourself.' There is no other commandment greater than these: Mark 12:31
And all people are our neighbours.
In the Good Samaritan , Jesus explained that we should consider all the people of the world to be our "neighbours." The Jews and Samaritans were peoples of a different race, different nationality, and rival religions. They had despised each other for hundreds of years and did not even speak. But, as we know, in the parable, a Samaritan man stopped to help an injured Jewish man and spent his time and money to give him the best care he possibly could. In the conclusion of the parable, Jesus says to, "Go and do thou likewise."
Further more, enemies are neighbours, too, hard though it may be to accept that. Just as God loves all His people, so should we. Jesus calls us to extend our love even to our enemies! "You have heard it said, in times of old, "Love your neighbour and hate your enemy." But I say, love your enemies! Pray for those who persecute you! In that way, you will be acting as true children of your Father in heaven. For he gives his sunlight to both the evil and the good, and he sends rain on the just and on the unjust, too. If you love only those who love you, what good is that? Even corrupt tax-collectors do that much. If you are kind only to your friends, how are you different from anyone else? But you are to be perfect, even as your Father in heaven is perfect."
Paul said that Christian love is the greatest and most essential of all the spiritual gifts. Even faith is worthless without love: "If I speak in the tongues of mortals and of angels, but do not have love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. If I give away all my possessions, and if I hand over my body so that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing."
Paul summed up Love in this famous passage: "Love is patient; love is kind; love is not envious or boastful or arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice in wrongdoing, but rejoices in the truth. It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never ends. But as for prophecies, they will come to an end; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will come to an end... And now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; and the greatest of these is love.
The Christian message is about love, all-encompassing love. It's a difficult ask, we are only human; but if you do not aim high, you will never reach the heights.
-
Gabriella,
A thought. I am interested to know what the Qur'an says about love. The New Testament is very specific, love being the guiding principle. Unconditional love for your fellow man is not an explicit teaching of the Qur'an. Or, if it is, it is not prominent. If you are a Muslim, please suggest some verses, but please limit it to the actual Qur'an.
I don't think the Quran advocates unconditional love for your fellow man - I could be wrong but my impression from reading the Quran is that it doesn't emphasise love - it emphasises doing good deeds, being kind, merciful, humble and just - but I don't think there is any requirement for unconditional love. So people forgive others as an act of mercy or compassion or by being humble enough to be aware of their own failings because that is considered good and also out of love for Allah.
I have to say - the whole unconditional love thing doesn't really do anything for me.
May I ask why?
I am not sure if my reason makes any sense but I think it is because I don't value love unless I have to earn it through words or deeds. I find it unfathomable that someone should love me regardless of how I act. Also I don't think I have a capacity to love unconditionally. Even as a parent, I have a maternal instinct, whereby I would protect my children from harm without worrying about the cost to me, but I am not sure I love them unconditionally - not sure what loving them unconditionally means. I can imagine situations where I would want nothing to do with them unless they made amends e.g. if they deliberately and cruelly hurt someone else.
I suppose it depends on the definition of love. If it is defined as just recognising someone as a fellow human being, wishing someone well without any depth to it, I guess I am ok with that.
I'm not sure anyone knows what is meant by 'love', unconditional or otherwise. I think in practice it really does mean what Gabriella describes - respect, compassion, non-harm.
I think I will always love my children unconditionally but it is possible that they could act in ways that would mean I wouldn't like them much, or want them around. And vice versa.
-
Paul said that Christian love is the greatest and most essential of all the spiritual gifts. Even faith is worthless without love: "If I speak in the tongues of mortals and of angels, but do not have love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. If I give away all my possessions, and if I hand over my body so that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing."
Paul summed up Love in this famous passage: "Love is patient; love is kind; love is not envious or boastful or arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice in wrongdoing, but rejoices in the truth. It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never ends. But as for prophecies, they will come to an end; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will come to an end... And now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; and the greatest of these is love.
The Christian message is about love, all-encompassing love. It's a difficult ask, we are only human; but if you do not aim high, you will never reach the heights.
All very nice. Do not really get the bit about "bearing all things" - is it to be borne in order to earn some kind of heavenly reward or is it to be borne just because that code of conduct is what Christianity teaches? And what does "bearing all things" mean? If someone was hurting me or someone else, am I bearing it if I do something to prevent them being able to continue causing someone pain - if I could do it through dialogue great, but if not I would use force.
-
Paul said that Christian love is the greatest and most essential of all the spiritual gifts. Even faith is worthless without love: "If I speak in the tongues of mortals and of angels, but do not have love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. If I give away all my possessions, and if I hand over my body so that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing."
Paul summed up Love in this famous passage: "Love is patient; love is kind; love is not envious or boastful or arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice in wrongdoing, but rejoices in the truth. It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never ends. But as for prophecies, they will come to an end; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will come to an end... And now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; and the greatest of these is love.
The Christian message is about love, all-encompassing love. It's a difficult ask, we are only human; but if you do not aim high, you will never reach the heights.
All very nice. Do not really get the bit about "bearing all things" - is it to be borne in order to earn some kind of heavenly reward or is it to be borne just because that code of conduct is what Christianity teaches? And what does "bearing all things" mean? If someone was hurting me or someone else, am I bearing it if I do something to prevent them being able to continue causing someone pain - if I could do it through dialogue great, but if not I would use force.
To love is to do so whatever the faults of others - and we all have plenty - and not merely love those who appeal to you personally. I said it is not easy; but you need to at least try.
-
Paul said that Christian love is the greatest and most essential of all the spiritual gifts. Even faith is worthless without love: "If I speak in the tongues of mortals and of angels, but do not have love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. If I give away all my possessions, and if I hand over my body so that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing."
Paul summed up Love in this famous passage: "Love is patient; love is kind; love is not envious or boastful or arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice in wrongdoing, but rejoices in the truth. It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never ends. But as for prophecies, they will come to an end; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will come to an end... And now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; and the greatest of these is love.
The Christian message is about love, all-encompassing love. It's a difficult ask, we are only human; but if you do not aim high, you will never reach the heights.
All very nice. Do not really get the bit about "bearing all things" - is it to be borne in order to earn some kind of heavenly reward or is it to be borne just because that code of conduct is what Christianity teaches? And what does "bearing all things" mean? If someone was hurting me or someone else, am I bearing it if I do something to prevent them being able to continue causing someone pain - if I could do it through dialogue great, but if not I would use force.
To love is to do so whatever the faults of others - and we all have plenty - and not merely love those who appeal to you personally. I said it is not easy; but you need to at least try.
Yes - just trying to get a handle on the Christian concept of love. Can I love the mugger while I am also bashing him over the head to get him away from the pensioner? Or is love only love if you just plead with them to stop and call the police?
-
Paul said that Christian love is the greatest and most essential of all the spiritual gifts. Even faith is worthless without love: "If I speak in the tongues of mortals and of angels, but do not have love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. If I give away all my possessions, and if I hand over my body so that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing."
Paul summed up Love in this famous passage: "Love is patient; love is kind; love is not envious or boastful or arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice in wrongdoing, but rejoices in the truth. It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never ends. But as for prophecies, they will come to an end; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will come to an end... And now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; and the greatest of these is love.
The Christian message is about love, all-encompassing love. It's a difficult ask, we are only human; but if you do not aim high, you will never reach the heights.
All very nice. Do not really get the bit about "bearing all things" - is it to be borne in order to earn some kind of heavenly reward or is it to be borne just because that code of conduct is what Christianity teaches? And what does "bearing all things" mean? If someone was hurting me or someone else, am I bearing it if I do something to prevent them being able to continue causing someone pain - if I could do it through dialogue great, but if not I would use force.
To love is to do so whatever the faults of others - and we all have plenty - and not merely love those who appeal to you personally. I said it is not easy; but you need to at least try.
Yes - just trying to get a handle on the Christian concept of love. Can I love the mugger while I am also bashing him over the head to get him away from the pensioner? Or is love only love if you just plead with them to stop and call the police?
You can abhor evil behaviour, and do your utmost to defend against it; but that does not mean you have to hate.
-
Paul said that Christian love is the greatest and most essential of all the spiritual gifts. Even faith is worthless without love: "If I speak in the tongues of mortals and of angels, but do not have love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. If I give away all my possessions, and if I hand over my body so that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing."
Paul summed up Love in this famous passage: "Love is patient; love is kind; love is not envious or boastful or arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice in wrongdoing, but rejoices in the truth. It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never ends. But as for prophecies, they will come to an end; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will come to an end... And now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; and the greatest of these is love.
The Christian message is about love, all-encompassing love. It's a difficult ask, we are only human; but if you do not aim high, you will never reach the heights.
All very nice. Do not really get the bit about "bearing all things" - is it to be borne in order to earn some kind of heavenly reward or is it to be borne just because that code of conduct is what Christianity teaches? And what does "bearing all things" mean? If someone was hurting me or someone else, am I bearing it if I do something to prevent them being able to continue causing someone pain - if I could do it through dialogue great, but if not I would use force.
To love is to do so whatever the faults of others - and we all have plenty - and not merely love those who appeal to you personally. I said it is not easy; but you need to at least try.
Yes - just trying to get a handle on the Christian concept of love. Can I love the mugger while I am also bashing him over the head to get him away from the pensioner? Or is love only love if you just plead with them to stop and call the police?
You can abhor evil behaviour, and do your utmost to defend against it; but that does not mean you have to hate.
As we have no definition of "hate" versus "abhor evil behaviour" I will just say that there are lots of Muslims who abhor the behaviour of ISIS militants. I am pretty sure that if you speak to some of the Muslim victims of ISIS they would say they hate ISIS militants, not just their behaviour. I won't venture to guess whether the Christian victims of ISIS militants abhor the behaviour of those militants or hate them.
-
I don't have any expectations as to the sexuality of my children, or whether they marry or have children at all.
-
I think that love is far more encompassing than some here would think. Yes, it involves caring for others, protecting others, treating others as you would want to be treated - but it also involves discipline and punishment. A loving parent will punish a child who breaks the boundaries - either society's ones or the family's. But the important thing is that discipline is within a caring and protective context. That is as much to do with unconditional love as anything else.
-
I think it is impossible for human beings to love everyone unconditionally.
However, I do think we can show it in limited ways.
For example when our children don't live up to our expectations.
They are gay for example, I would love my son and if he were gay it would make no difference, he is still my son.
If he fails in what I expect him to be. Unconditional love is accepting of others no matter what.
It's going the extra mile, it's being there for someone in a rough patch.
It's accepting them as they are.
Loving them for who they are, not who you think they should be.
For a god to show unconditional love, I would expect that level of caring.
I'm not sure that that is the level of caring the Christian God shows - if anything that is below his level. As I've said in my previous post, the aspect of discipline can't be ignored. Unconditional love will point out when failings or mistakes occur, and if necessary allow the person to suffer the consequences, but without dismissing the person or saying that they are no longer acceptable. That is why Christianity talks about hating the wrong-doing but not the wrong-doer. I accept that there are some here who find that concept hard to accept, but it is what the idea of restorative justice is based on.
-
Gabriella,
A thought. I am interested to know what the Qur'an says about love. The New Testament is very specific, love being the guiding principle. Unconditional love for your fellow man is not an explicit teaching of the Qur'an. Or, if it is, it is not prominent. If you are a Muslim, please suggest some verses, but please limit it to the actual Qur'an.
I don't think the Quran advocates unconditional love for your fellow man - I could be wrong but my impression from reading the Quran is that it doesn't emphasise love - it emphasises doing good deeds, being kind, merciful, humble and just - but I don't think there is any requirement for unconditional love. So people forgive others as an act of mercy or compassion or by being humble enough to be aware of their own failings because that is considered good and also out of love for Allah.
I have to say - the whole unconditional love thing doesn't really do anything for me.
May I ask why?
I like the whole unconditional love thing, but don't find it in Christianity either.
There are conditions to being saved.
If there were none, that's unconditional and it wouldn't exclude people of any faith or none.
Rose, Jesus' death has given the great gift of Redemption. That is unconditional love in action, and all you are required to do is accept Jesus in your life. So, no strings.
Accepting Jesus as God is a string.
Having a faith is not a string!
-
Gabriella,
A thought. I am interested to know what the Qur'an says about love. The New Testament is very specific, love being the guiding principle. Unconditional love for your fellow man is not an explicit teaching of the Qur'an. Or, if it is, it is not prominent. If you are a Muslim, please suggest some verses, but please limit it to the actual Qur'an.
I don't think the Quran advocates unconditional love for your fellow man - I could be wrong but my impression from reading the Quran is that it doesn't emphasise love - it emphasises doing good deeds, being kind, merciful, humble and just - but I don't think there is any requirement for unconditional love. So people forgive others as an act of mercy or compassion or by being humble enough to be aware of their own failings because that is considered good and also out of love for Allah.
I have to say - the whole unconditional love thing doesn't really do anything for me.
May I ask why?
I like the whole unconditional love thing, but don't find it in Christianity either.
There are conditions to being saved.
If there were none, that's unconditional and it wouldn't exclude people of any faith or none.
Rose, Jesus' death has given the great gift of Redemption. That is unconditional love in action, and all you are required to do is accept Jesus in your life. So, no strings.
Accepting Jesus as God is a string.
Having a faith is not a string!
No, but having to believe a certain thing is and let's face it, Christianity lays down exactly what you have to believe.
We always have a choice. Jesus never said you have to believe: He was most scrupulous in leaving the decisions to personal choice. No, you are wrong.
-
Accepting Jesus as God is a string.
If that's the case, life as a whole is a string, in so far as each of us have a world-view that informs our lives and our actions. We each believe that our world-view is the correct one.
-
Gabriella,
A thought. I am interested to know what the Qur'an says about love. The New Testament is very specific, love being the guiding principle. Unconditional love for your fellow man is not an explicit teaching of the Qur'an. Or, if it is, it is not prominent. If you are a Muslim, please suggest some verses, but please limit it to the actual Qur'an.
I don't think the Quran advocates unconditional love for your fellow man - I could be wrong but my impression from reading the Quran is that it doesn't emphasise love - it emphasises doing good deeds, being kind, merciful, humble and just - but I don't think there is any requirement for unconditional love. So people forgive others as an act of mercy or compassion or by being humble enough to be aware of their own failings because that is considered good and also out of love for Allah.
I have to say - the whole unconditional love thing doesn't really do anything for me.
May I ask why?
I like the whole unconditional love thing, but don't find it in Christianity either.
There are conditions to being saved.
If there were none, that's unconditional and it wouldn't exclude people of any faith or none.
Rose, Jesus' death has given the great gift of Redemption. That is unconditional love in action, and all you are required to do is accept Jesus in your life. So, no strings.
Accepting Jesus as God is a string.
Having a faith is not a string!
No, but having to believe a certain thing is and let's face it, Christianity lays down exactly what you have to believe.
We always have a choice. Jesus never said you have to believe: He was most scrupulous in leaving the decisions to personal choice. No, you are wrong.
It's not unconditional.
The condition is in what you have to believe.
I keepsaying,you don't have to believe anything.
-
Gabriella,
A thought. I am interested to know what the Qur'an says about love. The New Testament is very specific, love being the guiding principle. Unconditional love for your fellow man is not an explicit teaching of the Qur'an. Or, if it is, it is not prominent. If you are a Muslim, please suggest some verses, but please limit it to the actual Qur'an.
I don't think the Quran advocates unconditional love for your fellow man - I could be wrong but my impression from reading the Quran is that it doesn't emphasise love - it emphasises doing good deeds, being kind, merciful, humble and just - but I don't think there is any requirement for unconditional love. So people forgive others as an act of mercy or compassion or by being humble enough to be aware of their own failings because that is considered good and also out of love for Allah.
I have to say - the whole unconditional love thing doesn't really do anything for me.
May I ask why?
I like the whole unconditional love thing, but don't find it in Christianity either.
There are conditions to being saved.
If there were none, that's unconditional and it wouldn't exclude people of any faith or none.
Rose, Jesus' death has given the great gift of Redemption. That is unconditional love in action, and all you are required to do is accept Jesus in your life. So, no strings.
Accepting Jesus as God is a string.
Having a faith is not a string!
No, but having to believe a certain thing is and let's face it, Christianity lays down exactly what you have to believe.
We always have a choice. Jesus never said you have to believe: He was most scrupulous in leaving the decisions to personal choice. No, you are wrong.
It's not unconditional.
The condition is in what you have to believe.
I keepsaying,you don't have to believe anything.
Most Christians seem to believe that you do have to accept Jesus as your saviour, which involves belief.
I simply don't accept having a belief in something can be considered as having a string attached.
-
We always have a choice. Jesus never said you have to believe: He was most scrupulous in leaving the decisions to personal choice. No, you are wrong.
According to the Gospels Jesus was absolutely explicit about arrogating to himself the right to declare himself the sole and single way to God. You know the passages I'm alluding to, I don't need to reference them in detail. As I had cause to say to Alan Burns (on his theistic terms he will, if he's wrong about his chosen religion) very recently, this is a "choice" but the sort of "choice" associated with the Kray twins and the Richardson gang and every thug, hoodlum and mobster there has ever been - do this or else, and I don't mean in an abstract consequences sort of way (Drinking too much will feel great tonight but will end up in a hangover tomorrow) but in the clear threat of deliberately and consciously-inflicted pain by an agent.
-
We always have a choice. Jesus never said you have to believe: He was most scrupulous in leaving the decisions to personal choice. No, you are wrong.
According to the Gospels Jesus was absolutely explicit about arrogating to himself the right to declare himself the sole and single way to God. You know the passages I'm alluding to, I don't need to reference them in detail. As I had cause to say to Alan Burns (on his theistic terms he will, if he's wrong about his chosen religion) very recently, this is a "choice" but the sort of "choice" associated with the Kray twins and the Richardson gang and every thug, hoodlum and mobster there has ever been - do this or else, and I don't mean in an abstract consequences sort of way (Drinking too much will feel great tonight but will end up in a hangover tomorrow) but in the clear threat of deliberately and consciously-inflicted pain by an agent.
Shaker, don't be ridiculous - it's the first time I've heard Jesus and His teaching compared to the Krays. Excuse me, whilst I go and vomit! :(
-
According to the Gospels Jesus was absolutely explicit about arrogating to himself the right to declare himself the sole and single way to God. You know the passages I'm alluding to, I don't need to reference them in detail.
Shaker, I think that you do need to reference them in detail since, to my knowledge, Jesus never 'arrogates to himself the right to declare himself the sole and single way to God', unless you are suggesting that the only way to God is to believe in God (after all, Jesus is God in human form). If anyone arrogates to himself the right to declare that Jesus is the sole and single way to God, the Gospels make it pretty clear that that person would be God.
As I had cause to say to Alan Burns (on his theistic terms he will, if he's wrong about his chosen religion) very recently, this is a "choice" but the sort of "choice" associated with the Kray twins and the Richardson gang and every thug, hoodlum and mobster there has ever been - do this or else, and I don't mean in an abstract consequences sort of way (Drinking too much will feel great tonight but will end up in a hangover tomorrow) but in the clear threat of deliberately and consciously-inflicted pain by an agent.
I hadn't realised that the Krays or the Richardsons had offered salvation to humanity as a gift, Shakes.
Perhaps you ought to have another go at reading the Gospels, and with an open mind this time.
-
Paul said that Christian love is the greatest and most essential of all the spiritual gifts. Even faith is worthless without love: "If I speak in the tongues of mortals and of angels, but do not have love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. If I give away all my possessions, and if I hand over my body so that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing."
Paul summed up Love in this famous passage: "Love is patient; love is kind; love is not envious or boastful or arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice in wrongdoing, but rejoices in the truth. It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never ends. But as for prophecies, they will come to an end; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will come to an end... And now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; and the greatest of these is love.
The Christian message is about love, all-encompassing love. It's a difficult ask, we are only human; but if you do not aim high, you will never reach the heights.
All very nice. Do not really get the bit about "bearing all things" - is it to be borne in order to earn some kind of heavenly reward or is it to be borne just because that code of conduct is what Christianity teaches? And what does "bearing all things" mean? If someone was hurting me or someone else, am I bearing it if I do something to prevent them being able to continue causing someone pain - if I could do it through dialogue great, but if not I would use force.
To love is to do so whatever the faults of others - and we all have plenty - and not merely love those who appeal to you personally. I said it is not easy; but you need to at least try.
Yes - just trying to get a handle on the Christian concept of love. Can I love the mugger while I am also bashing him over the head to get him away from the pensioner? Or is love only love if you just plead with them to stop and call the police?
No, in the instance you describe the loving thing to do would be to bash the mugger. Firstly, Christianity would say that the pensioner deserves the greater compassion in that moment. Secondly, you would be potentially saving the mugger from the greater sin of taking life. Killing the mugger would be regrettable but generally it is accepted that in order to protect life sometimes lives are taken. And if the mugger survives the bang on the head he gets carted off to clink where he can't mug any more old people and maybe gets rehabilitated.
So it's fine.
-
I think that love is far more encompassing than some here would think. Yes, it involves caring for others, protecting others, treating others as you would want to be treated - but it also involves discipline and punishment. A loving parent will punish a child who breaks the boundaries - either society's ones or the family's. But the important thing is that discipline is within a caring and protective context. That is as much to do with unconditional love as anything else.
That's a very human perspective on love, as is your later post about restorative justice. It seems to me to arise from a need to justify excluding those you disagree with or find shameful - in a loving way of course. It gives you the right to 'punish' not only your own children but those you feel are transgressors - not just people who hurt others but blameless people who go against the supposed Christian idea of 'normal'.
Is God really so small?
-
Perhaps 'love' should be viewed as a state of being. If it is your state of being your actions will proceed from it. If you slip out of that state and enter a state of anger, hatred, fear, intellectual reasoning etc you will act from those. Perhaps it is a state of being to aspire to and sustain.
-
To love is to do so whatever the faults of others - and we all have plenty - and not merely love those who appeal to you personally. I said it is not easy; but you need to at least try.
Yes - just trying to get a handle on the Christian concept of love. Can I love the mugger while I am also bashing him over the head to get him away from the pensioner? Or is love only love if you just plead with them to stop and call the police?
No, in the instance you describe the loving thing to do would be to bash the mugger. Firstly, Christianity would say that the pensioner deserves the greater compassion in that moment. Secondly, you would be potentially saving the mugger from the greater sin of taking life. Killing the mugger would be regrettable but generally it is accepted that in order to protect life sometimes lives are taken. And if the mugger survives the bang on the head he gets carted off to clink where he can't mug any more old people and maybe gets rehabilitated.
So it's fine.
I am not sure whether I could hit a complete stranger with enough force for it to be effective and still claim I love them. At least that's not my definition of love - I always thought of love as feelings of attachment and I need to have some interaction with someone before I can develop an attachment for them.
I suppose there are different types of love and it is possible to re-define love to also mean a non-attachment based recognition of another person's humanity. But that doesn't sound like loving my neighbour with all my heart and might etc. unless it means I am recognising his humanity with all my heart and might.
Bashing a mugger also doesn't seem to fit in with Paul's definition that BA provided about love not insisting on its own way.
-
Well I was an Anglican, which is generally characterised by pragmatism, or it used to be. One characteristic it has is the need to defend the weak. I think in the moment Anglicanism would say do what you need to do to defend the weaker person and pick apart the theology of it later.
-
The 'love', displayed by the deity, if it can be described as such, which is doubtful, is very conditional. 'Believe in me, or go to hell!'
-
The 'love', displayed by the deity, if it can be described as such, which is doubtful, is very conditional. 'Believe in me, or go to hell!'
When, oh when, will you stop parroting that garbage?
-
The 'love', displayed by the deity, if it can be described as such, which is doubtful, is very conditional. 'Believe in me, or go to hell!'
Where is he reported as having said that?
-
Gabriella,
A thought. I am interested to know what the Qur'an says about love. The New Testament is very specific, love being the guiding principle. Unconditional love for your fellow man is not an explicit teaching of the Qur'an. Or, if it is, it is not prominent. If you are a Muslim, please suggest some verses, but please limit it to the actual Qur'an.
I don't think the Quran advocates unconditional love for your fellow man - I could be wrong but my impression from reading the Quran is that it doesn't emphasise love - it emphasises doing good deeds, being kind, merciful, humble and just - but I don't think there is any requirement for unconditional love. So people forgive others as an act of mercy or compassion or by being humble enough to be aware of their own failings because that is considered good and also out of love for Allah.
I have to say - the whole unconditional love thing doesn't really do anything for me.
May I ask why?
I like the whole unconditional love thing, but don't find it in Christianity either.
There are conditions to being saved.
If there were none, that's unconditional and it wouldn't exclude people of any faith or none.
Rose, Jesus' death has given the great gift of Redemption. That is unconditional love in action, and all you are required to do is accept Jesus in your life. So, no strings.
Accepting Jesus as God is a string.
Hear! Hear!
-
BA
It is because if you don't hold it, the belief, you are excluded.
Therefore going to heaven excludes those who don't believe the right things.
Unconditional love excludes no one.
Unconditional love includes loving God... You cannot love God whom you do not see if you do not love your brother whom you can see.
Unconditional love is given and therefore if you love God you believe what he says.
-
Unconditional love includes loving God... You cannot love God whom you do not see if you do not love your brother whom you can see.
Unconditional love is given and therefore if you love God you believe what he says.
Do you unconditionally love god? So if it asked you to kill you son aka as per Abrham you'd do exactly what was demanded of you?
I thought many Muslims love Mohamed but it is on condition he was not a dick.
-
Unconditional love to me means loving someone without any conditions.
So no matter what your children do for example, you are there for them, without any conditions or threats. You might not approve of what they have done but you are still there for them.
Can I have that mother, mine appears to be broken :)
O.
-
BA
It is because if you don't hold it, the belief, you are excluded.
Therefore going to heaven excludes those who don't believe the right things.
Unconditional love excludes no one.
Unconditional love includes loving God... You cannot love God whom you do not see if you do not love your brother whom you can see.
Unconditional love is given and therefore if you love God you believe what he says.
God's love is NOT NOT NOT unconditional!
It is given on the condition that you do exactly what he says or he will smite the total crap out of you!
Sassy, you don't half talk a load of shite sometimes!, No, you do it most of the time!
-
https://goo.gl/xm0NEJ
-
BA
It is because if you don't hold it, the belief, you are excluded.
Therefore going to heaven excludes those who don't believe the right things.
Unconditional love excludes no one.
Unconditional love includes loving God... You cannot love God whom you do not see if you do not love your brother whom you can see.
Unconditional love is given and therefore if you love God you believe what he says.
Another giggle from Sass! ;D
-
https://goo.gl/xm0NEJ
LOL!
-
Accepting Jesus as God is a string.
And a very costly string at that, 'count the cost' (luke 14:28)
-
Accepting Jesus as God is a string.
And a very costly string at that, 'count the cost' (luke 14:28)
Jesus said: "You are my friends if you do as I command you. It is my commandment that you love one another."
-
Accepting Jesus as God is a string.
And a very costly string at that, 'count the cost' (luke 14:28)
Jesus said: "You are my friends if you do as I command you. It is my commandment that you love one another."
I think Mafia bosses also make you an offer you cannot refuse.
Your God is like a Mafia boss. Do as I say and I will not torture you.
-
God evidently makes an offer that can be refused, as many refuse it!
-
God evidently makes an offer that can be refused, as many refuse it!
You can refuse the Mafia boss, but what are the consequences?
He might just kill you, but you God does much much worse
-
BA
It is because if you don't hold it, the belief, you are excluded.
Therefore going to heaven excludes those who don't believe the right things.
Unconditional love excludes no one.
Unconditional love includes loving God... You cannot love God whom you do not see if you do not love your brother whom you can see.
Unconditional love is given and therefore if you love God you believe what he says.
God's love is NOT NOT NOT unconditional!
It is given on the condition that you do exactly what he says or he will smite the total crap out of you!
Sassy, you don't half talk a load of shite sometimes!, No, you do it most of the time!
And 'smite the total crap out of you' is not a load of the Brown stuff.
Jesus states that you will die ''in your own sins''.
-
BA
It is because if you don't hold it, the belief, you are excluded.
Therefore going to heaven excludes those who don't believe the right things.
Unconditional love excludes no one.
Unconditional love includes loving God... You cannot love God whom you do not see if you do not love your brother whom you can see.
Unconditional love is given and therefore if you love God you believe what he says.
God's love is NOT NOT NOT unconditional!
It is given on the condition that you do exactly what he says or he will smite the total crap out of you!
Sassy, you don't half talk a load of shite sometimes!, No, you do it most of the time!
And 'smite the total crap out of you' is not a load of the Brown stuff.
Jesus states that you will die ''in your own sins''.
Whatever that means!
-
BA
It is because if you don't hold it, the belief, you are excluded.
Therefore going to heaven excludes those who don't believe the right things.
Unconditional love excludes no one.
Unconditional love includes loving God... You cannot love God whom you do not see if you do not love your brother whom you can see.
Unconditional love is given and therefore if you love God you believe what he says.
God's love is NOT NOT NOT unconditional!
It is given on the condition that you do exactly what he says or he will smite the total crap out of you!
Sassy, you don't half talk a load of shite sometimes!, No, you do it most of the time!
And 'smite the total crap out of you' is not a load of the Brown stuff.
Jesus states that you will die ''in your own sins''.
Whatever that means!
Presumably not God's sin of torturing you just because he feels like it. Presumably your own sins do that because you've never given them to God to deal with.
-
BA
It is because if you don't hold it, the belief, you are excluded.
Therefore going to heaven excludes those who don't believe the right things.
Unconditional love excludes no one.
Unconditional love includes loving God... You cannot love God whom you do not see if you do not love your brother whom you can see.
Unconditional love is given and therefore if you love God you believe what he says.
God's love is NOT NOT NOT unconditional!
It is given on the condition that you do exactly what he says or he will smite the total crap out of you!
Sassy, you don't half talk a load of shite sometimes!, No, you do it most of the time!
And 'smite the total crap out of you' is not a load of the Brown stuff.
Jesus states that you will die ''in your own sins''.
Whatever that means!
Presumably not God's sin of torturing you just because he feels like it. Presumably your own sins do that because you've never given them to God to deal with.
But nothing happens unless God allow it?
So he allows the torturing.
Also I thought he died and took all the sin?
-
BA
It is because if you don't hold it, the belief, you are excluded.
Therefore going to heaven excludes those who don't believe the right things.
Unconditional love excludes no one.
Unconditional love includes loving God... You cannot love God whom you do not see if you do not love your brother whom you can see.
Unconditional love is given and therefore if you love God you believe what he says.
God's love is NOT NOT NOT unconditional!
It is given on the condition that you do exactly what he says or he will smite the total crap out of you!
Sassy, you don't half talk a load of shite sometimes!, No, you do it most of the time!
And 'smite the total crap out of you' is not a load of the Brown stuff.
Jesus states that you will die ''in your own sins''.
Whatever that means!
Presumably not God's sin of torturing you just because he feels like it. Presumably your own sins do that because you've never given them to God to deal with.
But nothing happens unless God allow it?
So he allows the torturing.
Also I thought he died and took all the sin?
Well, yes because he is not prepared to violate our free will.
And yes we find the removal of the sins of the world within Christianity.
Does your final thought on what His death achieved give you comfort?
-
I like the whole unconditional love thing, but don't find it in Christianity either.
There are conditions to being saved.
If there were none, that's unconditional and it wouldn't exclude people of any faith or none.
I find it surprising that you don't find unconditional love in Christianity, Rose. After all, Jesus taught that he had died for all humanity. This offer of salvation was to be open to everyone. It wouldn't only be available to a particular people group, or to people who had done certain things to earn it.It ws to be available to all. You say that there are conditions to being saved - well, yes there is one. Accept that the free gift is for you. That is very different to whether or not love is unconditional.
I assume that you agree that most parents have an unconditional love for their child. Does it cease to exist, or at least to be unconditional when that child decides to walk out on the family and cuts all ties with that parent? Of course it doesn't. It's unconditionality isn't reliant on the acceptance or otherwise of itself.
-
I think it is impossible for human beings to love everyone unconditionally.
However, I do think we can show it in limited ways.
For example when our children don't live up to our expectations.
They are gay for example, I would love my son and if he were gay it would make no difference, he is still my son.
If he fails in what I expect him to be. Unconditional love is accepting of others no matter what.
It's going the extra mile, it's being there for someone in a rough patch.
It's accepting them as they are.
Loving them for who they are, not who you think they should be.
For a god to show unconditional love, I would expect that level of caring.
Your list of 'conditions' for the existence of unconditional love is remarkably similar to what God does for humanity. Following your claim in your post #4 that it doesn't exist in Christianity, you have now outlined exactly how it exists in Christianity.
-
Your list of 'conditions' for the existence of unconditional love is remarkably similar to what God does for humanity.
And your evidence for this assertion is ... ?
-
Your list of 'conditions' for the existence of unconditional love is remarkably similar to what God does for humanity. Following your claim in your post #4 that it doesn't exist in Christianity, you have now outlined exactly how it exists in Christianity.
Since Christianity is the invention of people why does that surprise you?
-
Your list of 'conditions' for the existence of unconditional love is remarkably similar to what God does for humanity.
And your evidence for this assertion is ... ?
Sorry not to have responded earlier; I tried to respond about an hour and a half ago, only to be told that this thread was not open to me!! It is now, so let's give you a response. Rose has made three posts in one of which she says that she doesn't find the idea of unconditional love within Christianity Post #4. A couple of posts later # 7 she states that "Accepting Jesus as God is a string", thus rendering the idea of unconditional love within Christianity void. Then, two pages later (post #60) she outlines a series of conditions which, when taken together, she seems to indicate are marks of 'unconditional love'; marks which when read in the way she sets them out are remarkably similar to the marks of unconditional love that Jesus teaches about in the Bible. So, to answer your question, I find the evidence in the very posts that Rose uses to try to prove that unconditional love doesn't occur in Christianity, taken in comparison with what is written in the Gospels.
-
Ah. No evidence, then. Why didn't you just say?
-
Ah. No evidence, then. Why didn't you just say?
Sorry, I clearly don't have the same definition of evidence, as you Shaker. If someone like Rose is able to come to a conclusion from a set of evidence that she outlines in the way she does, I believe that that same evidence can be used to counter her argument.
I notice that you often avoid getting into these deeper arguments, choosing to snipe around the edges instead. I believe that that is a marker of weak argumentation. ;)
-
Sorry, I clearly don't have the same definition of evidence, as you Shaker.
Clearly. I like my definition of evidence to deliver some evidence; you don't.
I notice that you often avoid getting into these deeper arguments, choosing to snipe around the edges instead.
Many of these discussions become unnecessarily complicated and convoluted; as I said only a day or two ago, I strive for clarity in all things.
I believe that that is a marker of weak argumentation. ;)
That'll be of a piece with the poverty and groundlessness of your other beliefs.
-
Since Christianity is the invention of people why does that surprise you?
An your evidence for that is ...?
-
Sorry, I clearly don't have the same definition of evidence, as you Shaker.
Clearly. I like my definition of evidence to deliver some evidence; you don't.
Sorry, my definition provides no less evidence than yours; just evidence that you don't accept as such. That is not my fault.
-
Sorry, my definition provides no less evidence than yours
Then demonstrate this to be the case.
-
Since Christianity is the invention of people why does that surprise you?
An your evidence for that is ...?
In this case stories and books - its people all the way down.
Those people who make up stories, those people who tell stories or gather information (for non-fiction stuff), those people who listen to stories, those people who write these stories (or other information) down, those people who produce the hard copy, those people who read the hard copy - and, finally, in some cases annoyingly, there are those people who insist on telling other people what they should be thinking about what it all means.
As I said - people all the way down.
-
Sorry, I clearly don't have the same definition of evidence, as you Shaker.
Clearly. I like my definition of evidence to deliver some evidence; you don't.
Sorry, my definition provides no less evidence than yours; just evidence that you don't accept as such. That is not my fault.
You don't have anything which passes for evidence, as there is none, all you have is belief!
-
BA
It is because if you don't hold it, the belief, you are excluded.
Therefore going to heaven excludes those who don't believe the right things.
Unconditional love excludes no one.
Unconditional love includes loving God... You cannot love God whom you do not see if you do not love your brother whom you can see.
Unconditional love is given and therefore if you love God you believe what he says.
God's love is NOT NOT NOT unconditional!
It is given on the condition that you do exactly what he says or he will smite the total crap out of you!
Sassy, you don't half talk a load of shite sometimes!, No, you do it most of the time!
And 'smite the total crap out of you' is not a load of the Brown stuff.
Jesus states that you will die ''in your own sins''.
Whatever that means!
Presumably not God's sin of torturing you just because he feels like it. Presumably your own sins do that because you've never given them to God to deal with.
But nothing happens unless God allow it?
So he allows the torturing.
Also I thought he died and took all the sin?
Well, yes because he is not prepared to violate our free will.
And yes we find the removal of the sins of the world within Christianity.
Does your final thought on what His death achieved give you comfort?
Why does it give you comfort to think that an innocent person suffered in your place? You're not a bad person. Wouldn't you rather deal with your own stuff honestly?
-
BA
It is because if you don't hold it, the belief, you are excluded.
Therefore going to heaven excludes those who don't believe the right things.
Unconditional love excludes no one.
Unconditional love includes loving God... You cannot love God whom you do not see if you do not love your brother whom you can see.
Unconditional love is given and therefore if you love God you believe what he says.
God's love is NOT NOT NOT unconditional!
It is given on the condition that you do exactly what he says or he will smite the total crap out of you!
Sassy, you don't half talk a load of shite sometimes!, No, you do it most of the time!
And 'smite the total crap out of you' is not a load of the Brown stuff.
Jesus states that you will die ''in your own sins''.
Whatever that means!
Presumably not God's sin of torturing you just because he feels like it. Presumably your own sins do that because you've never given them to God to deal with.
But nothing happens unless God allow it?
So he allows the torturing.
Also I thought he died and took all the sin?
Well, yes because he is not prepared to violate our free will.
And yes we find the removal of the sins of the world within Christianity.
Does your final thought on what His death achieved give you comfort?
Why does it give you comfort to think that an innocent person suffered in your place? You're not a bad person. Wouldn't you rather deal with your own stuff honestly?
Aren't you trying to be the cosmic judge wishing, though well meaning to forgive your sins and tackle your personal inner life.
I'm sorry Rhiannon I'm sure you mean well but you are not the one.
Dealing with your own stuff? Let's transfer that to psychiatry...oh yes, sort yourself out.
Sometimes we need saving Rhiannon and people risk and sacrifice themselves I think they deserve a bit of gratitude.
-
You don't have anything which passes for evidence, as there is none, all you have is belief!
Sorry, Floo, but my believe is based on evidence; it may not fit the definition of naturalistic evidence so beloved by some here, but then - as I've already said - I don't believe that the laws of nature are the only laws that goven us and the universe in which we live. You do, so naturally (no pun intended) you restrict everything to those parameters.
-
Aren't you trying to be the cosmic judge wishing, though well meaning to forgive your sins and tackle your personal inner life.
I'm sorry Rhiannon I'm sure you mean well but you are not the one.
Dealing with your own stuff? Let's transfer that to psychiatry...oh yes, sort yourself out.
Sometimes we need saving Rhiannon and people risk and sacrifice themselves I think they deserve a bit of gratitude.
I don't judge myself or others as 'sinful'; all I can do is try to take a clear-eyed view of my own personal failings and deal with them as best I can. It's not about being well-meaning, it's about knowing that the buck stops with me. I screw up, I pay. That is the reality of it. There's nothing supernatural in the process.
Sort yourself out? Who is the psychiatric profession recommends that? Have I?
Of course we all need other people and we live in a world of heroes and sacrifice. But when it comes to the inner things, we have to be prepared to save ourselves; nobody can do it for us, although if we are lucky we will find the kind and steadfast to journey through it with us, even if we fall. And I don't know why you think I am ungrateful to others, but none of that has anything to do with the myth of penal substitution.
-
Aren't you trying to be the cosmic judge wishing, though well meaning to forgive your sins and tackle your personal inner life.
I'm sorry Rhiannon I'm sure you mean well but you are not the one.
Dealing with your own stuff? Let's transfer that to psychiatry...oh yes, sort yourself out.
Sometimes we need saving Rhiannon and people risk and sacrifice themselves I think they deserve a bit of gratitude.
I don't judge myself or others as 'sinful'; all I can do is try to take a clear-eyed view of my own personal failings and deal with them as best I can. It's not about being well-meaning, it's about knowing that the buck stops with me. I screw up, I pay. That is the reality of it. There's nothing supernatural in the process.
Sort yourself out? Who is the psychiatric profession recommends that? Have I?
Of course we all need other people and we live in a world of heroes and sacrifice. But when it comes to the inner things, we have to be prepared to save ourselves; nobody can do it for us, although if we are lucky we will find the kind and steadfast to journey through it with us, even if we fall. And I don't know why you think I am ungrateful to others, but none of that has anything to do with the myth of penal substitution.
DIY is popular at the moment and we risk, nay guarantee a bodged up job.
-
How does believing in penal substitution help you to deal with your problems?
-
You don't have anything which passes for evidence, as there is none, all you have is belief!
Sorry, Floo, but my believe is based on evidence; it may not fit the definition of naturalistic evidence so beloved by some here, but then - as I've already said - I don't believe that the laws of nature are the only laws that goven us and the universe in which we live. You do, so naturally (no pun intended) you restrict everything to those parameters.
Hope your belief is not based on anything which is regarded as real evidence. There is no evidence there is anything else apart from the laws of nature to govern the universe, however much you wish to believe there is!
-
You don't have anything which passes for evidence, as there is none, all you have is belief!
Sorry, Floo, but my believe is based on evidence; it may not fit the definition of naturalistic evidence so beloved by some here, but then - as I've already said - I don't believe that the laws of nature are the only laws that goven us and the universe in which we live. You do, so naturally (no pun intended) you restrict everything to those parameters.
Then you do not have any evidence just assertions.
Why do you claim to have evidence when you don't.
-
How does believing in penal substitution help you to deal with your problems?
A good question. Let's hope for a clear answer.
-
How does believing in penal substitution help you to deal with your problems?
Well I can't answer for Vlad, but it means that I can 'cast my burdens upon the Lord'.
-
How does believing in penal substitution help you to deal with your problems?
Well I can't answer for Vlad, but it means that I can 'cast my burdens upon the Lord'.
I think this is sort of missing the point, as you could insert the words 'artichoke pizza' for penal substitution and it wouldn't make any difference to the answer.
-
How does believing in penal substitution help you to deal with your problems?
It's God taking the consequences of my alienation from him and alienation in general on himself.
Alienation damages the self and is eventually spiritually fatal leading a permanent state of alienation.
God takes the consequence of this on himself.
I can now enjoy a relationship with God.
-
Poor old God ::)
-
How does believing in penal substitution help you to deal with your problems?
It's God taking the consequences of my alienation from him and alienation in general on himself.
Alienation damages the self and is eventually spiritually fatal leading a permanent state of alienation.
God takes the consequence of this on himself.
I can now enjoy a relationship with God.
I'm a parent - I think you are too, in which case you know that it's like having your heart walking around outside you. Aside from some things I regard as truly evil I can't imagine my children doing anything that would alienate me from them. Yes, possibly they might feel guilt - although I hope not to the extent that they feel alienated from me - but in the normal day-to-day mistakes and thoughtlessness (what you might call 'sin') my arms and heart will always be open for them without any need for them to suffer or any sense of restorative justice being necessary. Isn't God supposed to act like a loving parent?
Are you saying that you imagine yourself to be so bad - sinful - that you cannot approach God without restorative justice? How does penal substitution put that right?
-
How does believing in penal substitution help you to deal with your problems?
Well I can't answer for Vlad, but it means that I can 'cast my burdens upon the Lord'.
This just seems to illustrate the gulf between our respective feelings and attitudes, 2Corrie.
I would feel ashamed to let someone else take upon themselves what I consider to be instances of my wrong doing, however willing they might be to do so. It would leave me in a very unsatisfactory and unhappy state. I would far rather try to take responsibility for my own failings and try to rectify my own faults, often with the support, of course, of understanding people whose help I would welcome and, indeed, in certain circumstances, would need.
-
This just seems to illustrate the gulf between our respective feelings and attitudes, 2Corrie.
I would feel ashamed to let someone else take upon themselves what I consider to be instances of my wrong doing, however willing they might be to do so. It would leave me in a very unsatisfactory and unhappy state. I would far rather try to take responsibility for my own failings and try to rectify my own faults, often with the support, of course, of understanding people whose help I would welcome and, indeed, in certain circumstances, would need.
I see no gulf between what you are describing (and what Floo often says) with what 2Corrie and others here say, enki. The one is how we resolve issues between us and one or more oher human being - and outlines much the same as any Christian would do in that situation. However since, as humans we are also in relationship with God, it's not simply a human/human interaction; God is part and parcel of the equation. Now, how would you try to repair that relationship? Would you feel that simply 'trying' to do something would suffice?
Remember that the death and resurrection of Jesus is far more than simply an act of forgiveness by God; it is a marker to say that death need no long hold any fear for us.
For me, it also means that I find resolving issues with other humans that much easier, as I know that having been forgiven my mistakes in the merciful way God does, I need to show grace and mercy to those who have damaged relationships with me (and that often includes my own acts as much as anyone else's.)
I can fully understand why people who have only ever lived and grown up in the West which, by definition, no longer deal in animal and blood sacrifice as a result of the influence of Christianity; they don't see the underlying meaning. Ironically, it took me living and working in the Indian subcontinent to see the symbolism more clearly.
-
Then you do not have any evidence just assertions.
Why do you claim to have evidence when you don't.
Sorry you seem unable to understand what I am saying, BR. Because you understand a given term in a given way doesn't mean that that is the only meaning it can have. Take, for instance, the word 'love' in English. It means a host of things, perhaps even more than the 4 meanings it contains for which Greek, for instance, uses 4 words. Or what about 'train' - a piece of cloth that flows from a person's head (more often than not a woman's) as part of a ceremonial outfit; a multi-carred vehicle that runs on tracks; a logical progression of something (and that's not even including the verbal meaning)
-
How does believing in penal substitution help you to deal with your problems?
Well I can't answer for Vlad, but it means that I can 'cast my burdens upon the Lord'.
This just seems to illustrate the gulf between our respective feelings and attitudes, 2Corrie.
I would feel ashamed to let someone else take upon themselves what I consider to be instances of my wrong doing, however willing they might be to do so. It would leave me in a very unsatisfactory and unhappy state. I would far rather try to take responsibility for my own failings and try to rectify my own faults, often with the support, of course, of understanding people whose help I would welcome and, indeed, in certain circumstances, would need.
I agree - except it's not even a preference, it's a necessity.
As a pagan I do experience deity, but only as a guide and support. I don't expect them to pay any price for me.
-
Remember that the death and resurrection of Jesus is far more than simply an act of forgiveness by God; it is a marker to say that death need no long hold any fear for us.
And yet people have viewed death without fear long before the alleged advent of Jesus and ever since. Coincidentally I've just finished watching Bettany Hughes's BBC Four programme on Socrates, in which she retold the (still to many very familiar) account of how this great man met his own death - unjust and enforced at that - calmly, equably and with his mind at perfect ease. And this four centuries before your ancient Jewish handyman was supposedly on the scene. The previous programme in the series, on Buddha or 'the' Buddha painted precisely the same picture of his death.
Plenty more have done the same since, whether believing that death is the gateway to some other form of conscious, perceiving existence or believing that death is the end of everything for ever from the point of view of the individual. I remember a phrase from The Autobiography of Mark Rutherford (forgotten now; a classic if rather well-trodden and predictable account of a Victorian minister's loss of faith) which goes something like: "I say nothing now for or against a belief in immortality, save that men have been quite happy without it even when faced with disaster." And then of course there are Bertrand Russell's famous words in the quote that begins: "I believe that when I die I shall rot, and nothing of my ego will survive ..." (He was wrong in only one particular; he didn't rot very much - he was cremated).
Jesus is most definitely a highly optional and easily discarded or ignored extra here, for others if not for you.
-
How does believing in penal substitution help you to deal with your problems?
It's God taking the consequences of my alienation from him and alienation in general on himself.
Alienation damages the self and is eventually spiritually fatal leading a permanent state of alienation.
God takes the consequence of this on himself.
I can now enjoy a relationship with God.
I'm a parent - I think you are too, in which case you know that it's like having your heart walking around outside you. Aside from some things I regard as truly evil I can't imagine my children doing anything that would alienate me from them. Yes, possibly they might feel guilt - although I hope not to the extent that they feel alienated from me - but in the normal day-to-day mistakes and thoughtlessness (what you might call 'sin') my arms and heart will always be open for them without any need for them to suffer or any sense of restorative justice being necessary. Isn't God supposed to act like a loving parent?
Are you saying that you imagine yourself to be so bad - sinful - that you cannot approach God without restorative justice? How does penal substitution put that right?
Well I've deliberately steered away from the trivial misdemeanours understood as sin since we all find ourselves ready to excuse ourselves....I guess that's why it's easy to say to someone else your not that bad.
In terms of restorative justice....even that involves a turning for forgiveness.
But what I am talking about is alienation and the consequences. As a parent and as a person I am forgiving but this involves taking consequence on myself on behalf of others.
-
No, 'we're all sinners' is the excuse. It's too easy to accept that, not least if you only need to say sorry in your prayers think yourself forgiven.
Asking for forgiveness is a part of taking responsibility for oneself and giving it a part of mental healing. But sometimes things can't be forgiven, least of all those things we do ourselves, and we have to find a way of accepting what we do and bearing it. If 'handing it over to God' works for you, fine, but its just a device for letting go. Does it help you deal with why you did it? 'I'm a sinner' doesn't throw much light on the root causes.
-
Coincidentally I've just finished watching Bettany Hughes's BBC Four programme on Socrates, in which she retold the (still to many very familiar) account of how this great man met his own death - unjust and enforced at that - calmly, equably and with his mind at perfect ease. And this four centuries before your ancient Jewish handyman was supposedly on the scene. The previous programme in the series, on Buddha or 'the' Buddha painted precisely the same picture of his death.
So, you are happy to accept 'evidence' from a third-party regarding Socrates and Siddhartha Gautama that is something like 2500 years after the event, yet trash potential eye-witness evidence from an event only 2000 years ago. That smacks of double standards. May I remind you that whilst someone may publically face death calmly, equably and with his mind at perfect ease
neither you, I or the likes of Bettany Hughes can really know what was going through their mind.
Jesus is most definitely a highly optional and easily discarded or ignored extra here, for others if not for you.
Just because someone or something is 'a highly optional and easily discarded or ignored extra' doesn't mean that what they are about is unimportant.
-
Coincidentally I've just finished watching Bettany Hughes's BBC Four programme on Socrates, in which she retold the (still to many very familiar) account of how this great man met his own death - unjust and enforced at that - calmly, equably and with his mind at perfect ease. And this four centuries before your ancient Jewish handyman was supposedly on the scene. The previous programme in the series, on Buddha or 'the' Buddha painted precisely the same picture of his death.
So, you are happy to accept 'evidence' from a third-party regarding Socrates and Siddhartha Gautama that is something like 2500 years after the event, yet trash potential eye-witness evidence from an event only 2000 years ago. That smacks of double standards. May I remind you that whilst someone may publically face death calmly, equably and with his mind at perfect ease
neither you, I or the likes of Bettany Hughes can really know what was going through their mind.
Jesus is most definitely a highly optional and easily discarded or ignored extra here, for others if not for you.
Just because someone or something is 'a highly optional and easily discarded or ignored extra' doesn't mean that what they are about is unimportant.
Last time I looked Socrates stayed dead - so not quite the same outcome as is claimed for Jesus.
-
Last time I looked Socrates stayed dead - so not quite the same outcome as is claimed for Jesus.
But I don't recall Socrates, or even Siddhartha Gautama, ever claiming to be God. You seem very keen to 'forget' the difference.
-
Last time I looked Socrates stayed dead - so not quite the same outcome as is claimed for Jesus.
But I don't recall Socrates, or even Siddhartha Gautama, ever claiming to be God. You seem very keen to 'forget' the difference.
No, it's the point of Gordon's post.
-
Last time I looked Socrates stayed dead - so not quite the same outcome as is claimed for Jesus.
But I don't recall Socrates, or even Siddhartha Gautama, ever claiming to be God. You seem very keen to 'forget' the difference.
The only difference here then is that Jesus was delusional.
-
Last time I looked Socrates stayed dead - so not quite the same outcome as is claimed for Jesus.
But I don't recall Socrates, or even Siddhartha Gautama, ever claiming to be God. You seem very keen to 'forget' the difference.
The only difference here then is that Jesus was delusional.
I find it perplexing that Hope takes the 'claim' so seriously.
I if claimed I was the immortal King of Bongo-Bong (to borrow the title of a song by Duck Baker) it doesn't mean that I just might be. Reasonable people, on hearing of an obviously unlikely or ridiculous claim like this, wouldn't even bother to take it seriously: the claim that Jesus was God seems no different.
-
Exactly so, Gord.
-
How does believing in penal substitution help you to deal with your problems?
Well I can't answer for Vlad, but it means that I can 'cast my burdens upon the Lord'.
Another cliché without any meaning in reality, imo!
-
... and one that sounds very much to me like a dodge designed to avoid taking responsibility for your own actions, including or especially your cock-ups.
-
... and one that sounds very much to me like a dodge designed to avoid taking responsibility for your own actions, including or especially your cock-ups.
So Christians are criticised for continually seeing themselves for being miserable sinners AND for not facing up to their sins. Get your story straight.
Christians take their actions as having had enormous existential consequences. Antitheists trivialise there own behaviour.
-
So Christians are criticised for continually seeing themselves for being miserable sinners AND for not facing up to their sins. Get your story straight.
The story is ruler-straight. There's no such thing as 'sin,' and the endless plaint of the Christian about how worthless and damaged and imperfect they are (but look! Here comes SuperJew to rescue us! Terms and conditions apply) is foolish, pathetic and, quite frankly, to me wholly contemptible, all the more so when it's over trivia such as perfectly natural things like being gay and so forth.
People do wrong and bad things sometimes, but they're wrong and bad because they have negative consequences for other people (although, me being me, I would broaden it to include all other sentient creatures). When we do wrong it's those others to whom we have to apologise and make restitution, not appeasing the caprices of imaginary gods.
Christians take their actions as having had enormous existential consequences. Antitheists trivialise there own behaviour.
Oooh, existential - is that your new favourite word to throw into every post for no reason?
-
So Christians are criticised for continually seeing themselves for being miserable sinners AND for not facing up to their sins. Get your story straight.
The story is ruler-straight. There's no such thing as 'sin,' and the endless plaint of the Christian about how worthless and damaged and imperfect they are (but look! Here comes SuperJew to rescue us! Terms and conditions apply) is foolish, pathetic and, quite frankly, to me wholly contemptible, all the more so when it's over trivia such as perfectly natural things like being gay and so forth.
People do wrong and bad things sometimes, but they're wrong and bad because they have negative consequences for other people (although, me being me, I would broaden it to include all other sentient creatures). When we do wrong it's those others to whom we have to apologise and make restitution, not appeasing the caprices of imaginary gods.
Christians take their actions as having had enormous existential consequences. Antitheists trivialise there own behaviour.
Oooh, existential - is that your new favourite word to throw into every post for no reason?
You are getting obsessed Shaker.
-
No, it's the point of Gordon's post.
What, the point of Gordon's post is that Socrates claimed to be God yet failed to return to life after death, unlike Jesus who also claimed to be God? :o
-
No, it's the point of Gordon's post.
What, the point of Gordon's post is that Socrates claimed to be God yet failed to return to life after death, unlike Jesus who also claimed to be God? :o
The problem with you playing dumb here is that it suits you so well
-
Aside from some things I regard as truly evil I can't imagine my children doing anything that would alienate me from them. Yes, possibly they might feel guilt - although I hope not to the extent that they feel alienated from me - but in the normal day-to-day mistakes and thoughtlessness (what you might call 'sin') my arms and heart will always be open for them without any need for them to suffer or any sense of restorative justice being necessary. Isn't God supposed to act like a loving parent?
So, are you suggesting that if they were to become alientated from you, they wouldn't have to accept that and come back to you? That you'd simply decuide that, because you love them as you do, their absence from you is inconsequential? Surely you would want them to make that, often physical as well as mental/spiritual, journey back to you, wouldn't you.
Are you saying that you imagine yourself to be so bad - sinful - that you cannot approach God without restorative justice? How does penal substitution put that right?
As I've said before, we in the West understandably find it hard to comprehend penal substitution because we don't rely on it in the way that a Hindu does, or the Jews used to prior to the destruction of the Temple. That doesn't mean that it doesn't have a meaning and purpose.
-
The problem with you playing dumb here is that it suits you so well
I pity if you believe that, NS, as it suggests that you fit into that category. Gordon's post compared Socrates' death with that of Jesus, and argued that the outcome must necessarily be the same. That is why I asked whether he was suggesting that Socrates was God, or had claimed to be God. As you know, he wasn't and hadn't; on the other hand, Jesus had. OK, whether he was or not has been open to debate for 2000 years, but in view of the claim, the situations are not comparable.
-
Now trying to be clever really doesn't work as a look for you, Hope.
-
Now trying to be clever really doesn't work as a look for you, Hope.
But at least it looks better for me than your daftness. I realise that you not believe that Jesus was God, and that he was simply a human being like Socrates; unfortunately, that is an assumption that has no more supporting evidence than my belief, and possibly less.
-
Now trying to be clever really doesn't work as a look for you, Hope.
But at least it looks better for me than your daftness. I realise that you not believe that Jesus was God, and that he was simply a human being like Socrates; unfortunately, that is an assumption that has no more supporting evidence than my belief, and possibly less.
Evidence in the legal, historical and scientific senses is all naturalistic. To have the evidence you claim, would need as had been pointed out many many times a methodology. You have never provided one, despite being asked. Your point fails even to rise to the level of speciousness
-
Now trying to be clever really doesn't work as a look for you, Hope.
But at least it looks better for me than your daftness. I realise that you not believe that Jesus was God, and that he was simply a human being like Socrates; unfortunately, that is an assumption that has no more supporting evidence than my belief, and possibly less.
Yaaaaaay, negative proof fallacy rides again, woooooooo!
-
No, it's the point of Gordon's post.
What, the point of Gordon's post is that Socrates claimed to be God yet failed to return to life after death, unlike Jesus who also claimed to be God? :o
That is about the daftest thing I've read from you, Hope: do you really think for one second that I was claiming Socrates claimed to be God!
-
Now trying to be clever really doesn't work as a look for you, Hope.
But at least it looks better for me than your daftness. I realise that you not believe that Jesus was God, and that he was simply a human being like Socrates; unfortunately, that is an assumption that has no more supporting evidence than my belief, and possibly less.
Evidence in the legal, historical and scientific senses is all naturalistic. To have the evidence you claim, would need as had been pointed out many many times a methodology. You have never provided one, despite being asked. Your point fails even to rise to the level of speciousness
Which makes me wonder why the antichristians throw a kind of cordon round the resurrection to prevent thorough historical analysis and promote philosophical explanations over it.
-
Which makes me wonder why the antichristians throw a kind of cordon round the resurrection to prevent thorough historical analysis and promote philosophical explanations over it.
The sort of blanket that says 'this is an extraordinary claim, and there isn't enough evidence to support it from the few, not impartial accounts that have survived to the modern day to support it'?
O.
-
... and one that sounds very much to me like a dodge designed to avoid taking responsibility for your own actions, including or especially your cock-ups.
So Christians are criticised for continually seeing themselves for being miserable sinners AND for not facing up to their sins. Get your story straight.
Christians take their actions as having had enormous existential consequences. Antitheists trivialise there own behaviour.
Seeing yourself as a miserable sinner who has no choice but to screw up and ask God for forgiveness is infantilising. It does nothing to address repeating the same mistakes, nor why a person feels the self to be so worthless to start with - almost always without foundation, from what I've seen of humanity. People do plenty of stupid things, but there aren't many who do bad things.
But with understanding why we do stupid things there also needs to come a taking of responsibility. If my son breaks my neighbour's window with his football I will pay for it. I won't when he's old enough to pay for it himself.
-
Seeing yourself as a miserable sinner who has no choice but to screw up and ask God for forgiveness is infantilising. It does nothing to address repeating the same mistakes, nor why a person feels the self to be so worthless to start with - almost always without foundation, from what I've seen of humanity. People do plenty of stupid things, but there aren't many who do bad things.
In the Foreword to Brave New World Aldous Huxley said something to the effect that feelings of chronic remorse and unworthiness are some of the worst and most useless emotions there are; rolling in the muck is no way to get clean.
-
Seeing yourself as a miserable sinner who has no choice but to screw up and ask God for forgiveness is infantilising. It does nothing to address repeating the same mistakes, nor why a person feels the self to be so worthless to start with - almost always without foundation, from what I've seen of humanity. People do plenty of stupid things, but there aren't many who do bad things.
In the Foreword to Brave New World Aldous Huxley said something to the effect that feelings of chronic remorse and unworthiness are some of the worst and most useless emotions there are; rolling in the muck is no way to get clean.
Good to see that even you occasionally fall prey to the quoting glitch, Shakes ;) The 'Seeing yourself as a miserable sinner ..' comment is Rhi's not MfPNp's ;)
-
One of the perils of posting on a smartphone, alas.
Not that anybody was in any danger of mixing up Rhiannon's post with Vlad's - Rhiannon's are properly spelt and punctuated and make sense.
-
Seeing yourself as a miserable sinner who has no choice but to screw up and ask God for forgiveness is infantilising. It does nothing to address repeating the same mistakes, nor why a person feels the self to be so worthless to start with - almost always without foundation, from what I've seen of humanity. People do plenty of stupid things, but there aren't many who do bad things.
I would disagree, Rhi, both with your suggestion that 'seeing oneself as a sinner who has no choice ...' (notice I've removed the 'miserable' as it is redundant) is infantalising, and with the subsequent comment about doing 'nothing to address repeating the same mistakes'.
Jesus didn't use the analogy of a doctor for no reason. Sin is spiritual ill-health, and as anyone who recognises that they have physical ill-health turns to the medical doctor, so those who have spiritual ill-health, such as a broken relationship with their creator, turn to Jesus for help to heal that relationship. As such, it's a remarkably adult action.
Similarly, in the same way that you will probably ( ;)) pay attention to your GP as how to recover from an illness and reduce your risk of getting it again - 'take these pills, get some exercise, reduce your intake of alcohol, etc'. - so turning to Christ to deal with spiritual illhealth involves following his advice/instructions - such as 'keep out of the way of that which you know to be weakness; avoid those who you know lead you to such situations; etc.' In other words, it does everything 'to address repeating the same mistakes'. Like your interaction with the doctor, you will probably mess up and need to be reminded a few times, but in time avoiding those cakes, double cream, etc. becomes second nature.
As for "nor why a person feels the self to be so worthless to start with", I don't know of any Christian that this would apply to. I'll agree that there may be some - Floo as a child and her family spring to mind as possible examples from what she has described over the months - but recognising illhealth doesn't necessarily equate to 'feeling worthless'. It certainly has never done so for me, my siblings (all of whom are believers) or my parents, both of whom were believers during their lifetimes.
But with understanding why we do stupid things there also needs to come a taking of responsibility.
Precisely, one has to take responsibility for one's illheath AND get advice and support in overcoming it.
-
Not that anybody was in any danger of mixing up Rhiannon's post with Vlad's - Rhiannon's are properly spelt and punctuated and make sense.
Unless, of course, one was newcomer to the board, but of course we never have one of those, do we ;)
-
Not round these here parts.
-
Seeing yourself as a miserable sinner who has no choice but to screw up and ask God for forgiveness is infantilising. It does nothing to address repeating the same mistakes, nor why a person feels the self to be so worthless to start with - almost always without foundation, from what I've seen of humanity. People do plenty of stupid things, but there aren't many who do bad things.
In the Foreword to Brave New World Aldous Huxley said something to the effect that feelings of chronic remorse and unworthiness are some of the worst and most useless emotions there are; rolling in the muck is no way to get clean.
I'm afraid the only line I can remember from Brave New World is 'rams wrapped in thermogene beget no lambs' ;D
-
This just seems to illustrate the gulf between our respective feelings and attitudes, 2Corrie.
I would feel ashamed to let someone else take upon themselves what I consider to be instances of my wrong doing, however willing they might be to do so. It would leave me in a very unsatisfactory and unhappy state. I would far rather try to take responsibility for my own failings and try to rectify my own faults, often with the support, of course, of understanding people whose help I would welcome and, indeed, in certain circumstances, would need.
I see no gulf between what you are describing (and what Floo often says) with what 2Corrie and others here say, enki. The one is how we resolve issues between us and one or more oher human being - and outlines much the same as any Christian would do in that situation. However since, as humans we are also in relationship with God, it's not simply a human/human interaction; God is part and parcel of the equation. Now, how would you try to repair that relationship? Would you feel that simply 'trying' to do something would suffice?
Remember that the death and resurrection of Jesus is far more than simply an act of forgiveness by God; it is a marker to say that death need no long hold any fear for us.
For me, it also means that I find resolving issues with other humans that much easier, as I know that having been forgiven my mistakes in the merciful way God does, I need to show grace and mercy to those who have damaged relationships with me (and that often includes my own acts as much as anyone else's.)
I can fully understand why people who have only ever lived and grown up in the West which, by definition, no longer deal in animal and blood sacrifice as a result of the influence of Christianity; they don't see the underlying meaning. Ironically, it took me living and working in the Indian subcontinent to see the symbolism more clearly.
Nope,
You've got the wrong end of the stick, Hope. My point was specific as regards penal substitution.
Corrie was saying that penal substitution means 'casting my burdens upon the Lord'. That was what I was replying to, and, I repeat, I would feel most unhappy to 'cast my burdens' upon anyone, including 'the Lord' if I actually believed he existed.
However, as regards your reply, the gulf shows clearly again when you suggest that we 'are also in relationship with God', which I clearly am not. Thus, all of what you then say simply illustrates that gulf. I have no relationship to repair. I am responsible for my own 'burdens' insofar as they are of my own doing. God is, for me, not part and parcel of the equation. Trying to do something constructive to the best of my abilities, and often with help, is the only way that I can progress, as I see it.
I do not see the supposed death and resurrection of Jesus as any form of forgiveness or atonement, or even a realization that I am sinful in contrast to the supposed death of an innocent man, at all. I do not fear death, only the manner of my going, and I certainly do not see the supposed death and resurrection of Jesus as any marker at all.
For me, the only forgiveness I seek is from those whom I have wronged, which of course doesn't include a God in whom I do not believe.
As regards your last paragraph, I think you are wrong if you think that I don't appreciate the underlying meanings of sacrifice. To understand something doesn't mean that one has to accept something.
As I said to 2Corrie, and now to you, what you have said seems to illustrate the gulf between our respective feelings and attitudes.
-
I was going to say 'amen' to all of that excellent post, enki, but realised that that wouldn't really fit. So I'll merely say bravo.
-
Cheers, Shakes. :) :-[
-
Last time I looked Socrates stayed dead - so not quite the same outcome as is claimed for Jesus.
Jesus stayed dead too.
-
we in the West understandably find it hard to comprehend penal substitution because we don't rely on it in the way that a Hindu does, or the Jews used to prior to the destruction of the Temple. That doesn't mean that it doesn't have a meaning and purpose.
What is its meaning and purpose?
-
we in the West understandably find it hard to comprehend penal substitution because we don't rely on it in the way that a Hindu does, or the Jews used to prior to the destruction of the Temple. That doesn't mean that it doesn't have a meaning and purpose.
What is its meaning and purpose?
That's what we have been trying to discover since post 66.
-
Jesus stayed dead too.
Your evidence, please.
-
Jesus stayed dead too.
Your evidence, please.
As there is no verifiable evidence to the contrary, it is a reasonable assumption that Jesus is a rotted corpse somewhere in the Middle East, as when one dies one stays dead!
-
BA
It is because if you don't hold it, the belief, you are excluded.
Therefore going to heaven excludes those who don't believe the right things.
Unconditional love excludes no one.
Rose, you seem to have got ideas about 'response to love' and 'love' mixed up. 'Unconditional love' depends on the source of that love, not the responder to that love. Jesus made it very clear that the salvation that his death and resurrection instituted is open to every human being there is. That is why it is unconditional - it doesn't depend on gender, race, academic ability, social status, even belief - it is available to ANYONE to access.
I have made reference to the relationship that humanity has with God, and contrary to what ekim says in one of his posts, that is true for everyone. We may have a bad relationship with God, we may even believe that we 'have' a non-existent relationship with him (as ekim seems to suggest is the case for him) but the fact that that offer of salvation is still open to him means that there is a tie (if not a 'relationship') between him and God.
However, as with any relationship, the person on the 'receiving' end of it can choose to pull away from it for whatever reason, but as you have pointed out elsewhere on this thread, that doesn't mean that the initiator of the relationship doesn't still love that person unconditionally.
-
As there is no verifiable evidence to the contrary, it is a reasonable assumption that Jesus is a rotted corpse somewhere in the Middle East, as when one dies one stays dead!
There is documentary evidence to the contrary, Floo, so, I repeat, where is your evidence.
-
Jesus stayed dead too.
Your evidence, please.
Take a quick visit to your local undertaker, then add a dash of inductive reasoning into the mix and you'll be home and dry as regards the very obvious fact that 2/3 day dead people don't recover - ever.
If you are claiming a single-case exception from antiquity then please present evidence to confirm this - please note that anecdotes from credulous and possibly biased people don't count (unless your gullibility gets the better of you), since we know people make mistakes and lie - so if you want to establish that a really dead person didn't stay dead then you'll need a method that is independent of the risks of human artifice and fallibility.
-
As there is no verifiable evidence to the contrary, it is a reasonable assumption that Jesus is a rotted corpse somewhere in the Middle East, as when one dies one stays dead!
There is documentary evidence to the contrary, Floo, so, I repeat, where is your evidence.
What documentary evidence? The Bible is NOT evidence. ::)
-
Jesus didn't use the analogy of a doctor for no reason.
In Jesus time, though, doctor was a latin word meaning 'expert' or 'teacher', hence why we have doctorates in all subjects, not just medicine.
Sin is spiritual ill-health, and as anyone who recognises that they have physical ill-health turns to the medical doctor, so those who have spiritual ill-health, such as a broken relationship with their creator, turn to Jesus for help to heal that relationship. As such, it's a remarkably adult action.
Except that a) there is no evidence for 'spiritual' or 'sin' being meaningful terms; b) there is no evidence that 'spiritual ill-health' actually has any effect; c) there is no evidence that any remedial action has any 'spiritually' beneficial effect and; d) believing that we are inherently unworthy/broken/faulty/deficient is, by definition, infantilising.
Similarly, in the same way that you will probably ( ;)) pay attention to your GP as how to recover from an illness and reduce your risk of getting it again - 'take these pills, get some exercise, reduce your intake of alcohol, etc'. - so turning to Christ to deal with spiritual illhealth involves following his advice/instructions
Except that medical advice is regulated with a demonstrable track record of evidence to support the recommendations.
- such as 'keep out of the way of that which you know to be weakness; avoid those who you know lead you to such situations; etc.' In other words, it does everything 'to address repeating the same mistakes'.
And you think needing to be given that sort of advice isn't infantilising?
As for "nor why a person feels the self to be so worthless to start with", I don't know of any Christian that this would apply to. I'll agree that there may be some - Floo as a child and her family spring to mind as possible examples from what she has described over the months - but recognising illhealth doesn't necessarily equate to 'feeling worthless'.
Tell that to someone diagnosed with a mental condition...
O.
-
Last time I looked Socrates stayed dead - so not quite the same outcome as is claimed for Jesus.
Jesus stayed dead too.
You hope.
-
Last time I looked Socrates stayed dead - so not quite the same outcome as is claimed for Jesus.
Jesus stayed dead too.
You hope.
Not really - dead is dead: not a recoverable condition.
-
You hope.
No, you hope - that's faith.
We look to trust that previously established patterns will remain consistent - that's expectation.
O.
-
BA
It is because if you don't hold it, the belief, you are excluded.
Therefore going to heaven excludes those who don't believe the right things.
Unconditional love excludes no one.
Rose, you seem to have got ideas about 'response to love' and 'love' mixed up. 'Unconditional love' depends on the source of that love, not the responder to that love. Jesus made it very clear that the salvation that his death and resurrection instituted is open to every human being there is. That is why it is unconditional - it doesn't depend on gender, race, academic ability, social status, even belief - it is available to ANYONE to access.
I have made reference to the relationship that humanity has with God, and contrary to what ekim says in one of his posts, that is true for everyone. We may have a bad relationship with God, we may even believe that we 'have' a non-existent relationship with him (as ekim seems to suggest is the case for him) but the fact that that offer of salvation is still open to him means that there is a tie (if not a 'relationship') between him and God.
However, as with any relationship, the person on the 'receiving' end of it can choose to pull away from it for whatever reason, but as you have pointed out elsewhere on this thread, that doesn't mean that the initiator of the relationship doesn't still love that person unconditionally.
I'm not sure where you got those ideas about me from but for what it is worth my view of the Jesus situation and unconditional love would be something like this. I would call the love from his God 'indifferent' rather than unconditional i.e. 'just as the sun shines on all no matter whether good or bad'. It's just a constant radiance which you can either turn towards (hit the mark) or away from and towards the material world (miss the mark - sin). Jesus introduced a way or method to 'hit the mark' and surrender to the Will of that God. He was executed because his method and teaching conflicted with the Jewish religious establishment and rather than run away and hide he left it to the Will of his God as to whether he should live or die (His prayer.. O God, if it is possible, let this impending destiny be averted, but only if it conforms to your will.). I would say that the stories about his physical resurrection were created by a distraught band of followers desperate to sustain his religious method. His followers did a better PR job than the followers of John the Baptist. Any 'salvation' or progress towards a heaven would come from his method not his (penal substitute) death.
-
As there is no verifiable evidence to the contrary, it is a reasonable assumption that Jesus is a rotted corpse somewhere in the Middle East, as when one dies one stays dead!
There is documentary evidence to the contrary, Floo, so, I repeat, where is your evidence.
There is documentary evidence that King Arthur cast Excalibur into the water only to have it caught by the Lady of the Lake, before he died and was transported to Avalon.
-
As there is no verifiable evidence to the contrary, it is a reasonable assumption that Jesus is a rotted corpse somewhere in the Middle East, as when one dies one stays dead!
There is documentary evidence to the contrary, Floo, so, I repeat, where is your evidence.
There is documentary evidence that King Arthur cast Excalibur into the water only to have it caught by the Lady of the Lake, before he died and was transported to Avalon.
Yes and documentary evidence that God doesn't exist in a holy books called ''The God Delusion'' and ''God is not Great''
-
As there is no verifiable evidence to the contrary, it is a reasonable assumption that Jesus is a rotted corpse somewhere in the Middle East, as when one dies one stays dead!
There is documentary evidence to the contrary, Floo, so, I repeat, where is your evidence.
There is documentary evidence that King Arthur cast Excalibur into the water only to have it caught by the Lady of the Lake, before he died and was transported to Avalon.
That's a much better story than the one about God requiring torture of another so I can be reconciled to him. Can I believe the Arthur one please?
-
By all means :)
-
Jesus didn't use the analogy of a doctor for no reason.
In Jesus time, though, doctor was a latin word meaning 'expert' or 'teacher', hence why we have doctorates in all subjects, not just medicine.
Sin is spiritual ill-health, and as anyone who recognises that they have physical ill-health turns to the medical doctor, so those who have spiritual ill-health, such as a broken relationship with their creator, turn to Jesus for help to heal that relationship. As such, it's a remarkably adult action.
Except that a) there is no evidence for 'spiritual' or 'sin' being meaningful terms; b) there is no evidence that 'spiritual ill-health' actually has any effect; c) there is no evidence that any remedial action has any 'spiritually' beneficial effect and; d) believing that we are inherently unworthy/broken/faulty/deficient is, by definition, infantilising.
Similarly, in the same way that you will probably ( ;)) pay attention to your GP as how to recover from an illness and reduce your risk of getting it again - 'take these pills, get some exercise, reduce your intake of alcohol, etc'. - so turning to Christ to deal with spiritual illhealth involves following his advice/instructions
Except that medical advice is regulated with a demonstrable track record of evidence to support the recommendations.
- such as 'keep out of the way of that which you know to be weakness; avoid those who you know lead you to such situations; etc.' In other words, it does everything 'to address repeating the same mistakes'.
And you think needing to be given that sort of advice isn't infantilising?
As for "nor why a person feels the self to be so worthless to start with", I don't know of any Christian that this would apply to. I'll agree that there may be some - Floo as a child and her family spring to mind as possible examples from what she has described over the months - but recognising illhealth doesn't necessarily equate to 'feeling worthless'.
Tell that to someone diagnosed with a mental condition...
O.
Agree pretty much with all of this.
O, I don't know if you're familiar with my rather woolly definition of 'spiritual' but to me it means the part of us that needs attending to once our physical needs are met - it's the part of us that appreciates music and a sunset, and that wants to learn and love. Part of that - and it affects what you were saying about mental well-being also - is to have healthy boundaries, standards we set that we adhere to in order to be comfortable with ourselves. But it is up to the individual to decide where those boundaries lie, so long as they don't hurt others. Indeed, it is a part of self-worth to decide these things for ourselves.
It's now thought that depression and anxiety have low self-worth as a root cause. Living in a world that tells you that not only are you a sinner but that you will never stop being a sinner, indeed will sin every day, does nothing to help that. And of course when you do something good, kind or self sacrificing that is God working through you - not you.
A key to good mental health is self-acceptance. How can anyone accept themselves if they are told time and again that the only way they can be reconciled to God is through the barbaric torture and execution of (to Christians) the greatest and most loving man that ever lived?
-
O, I don't know if you're familiar with my rather woolly definition of 'spiritual' but to me it means the part of us that needs attending to once our physical needs are met - it's the part of us that appreciates music and a sunset, and that wants to learn and love. Part of that - and it affects what you were saying about mental well-being also - is to have healthy boundaries, standards we set that we adhere to in order to be comfortable with ourselves. But it is up to the individual to decide where those boundaries lie, so long as they don't hurt others. Indeed, it is a part of self-worth to decide these things for ourselves.
That sounds to me like mental fitness - the mental corollary to physical fitness as a counterpart to physical health. You can be physically healthy but still not feel what you want to - you can be devoid of diagnosable mental conditions but still not be where or what you want.
It's now thought that depression and anxiety have low self-worth as a root cause.
A cause - unfortunately, with mental health, I get the feeling that we accept descriptions in place of diagnoses. 'Depression' is a symptom, it's not a condition - at the moment we don't have that good a handle on what the causes are, or the mechanisms by which they operate, so treating symptoms is the best that we can do and it needs to be done, but we need to bear in mind that a diagnosis of 'depression' is a bit like a diagnosis of 'leg pain': it doesn't differentiate between a flesh-eating virus, a fracture and neuralgia.
Living in a world that tells you that not only are you a sinner but that you will never stop being a sinner, indeed will sin every day, does nothing to help that. And of course when you do something good, kind or self sacrificing that is God working through you - not you.
We're amazing. Each and every single one of us is a marvel of biological achievement just by waking up in the morning. I despair of the mentality that looks at humanity, what it's achieved, the peaks (and troughs) of our capacity and says 'faulty', or 'broken' or 'imperfect'. It's a negative mentality - we can acknowledge our 'imperfections' without letting them define us.
O.
-
O, I've had severe anxiety and improving self esteem (possibly through CBT) is part of the recommended recovery now. Maybe 'cause' isn't the right word, but low self esteem (often beginning in infancy) is recognised by experts as being one of the things that needs fixing on the way to recovery. I came through my CBT quite literally not knowing who I was because in forty-odd years I'd been fed so much shit about how weak and worthless I was, I believed it all. The irony is that much of it came from people who loved me and who wanted the best for me, and because of their own (Christian) upbringing believed the way to make me turn out right was to shame me into it. It's no surprise then that my relationships followed a similar pattern.
Part of healthy self esteem is accepting the imperfections; they make us who we are. But as you say, they don't define us; indeed, what we regard as our flaws can sometimes be utilised to the benefit of others and ourselves.
-
O, I've had severe anxiety and improving self esteem (possibly through CBT) is part of the recommended recovery now. Maybe 'cause' isn't the right word, but low self esteem (often beginning in infancy) is recognised by experts as being one of the things that needs fixing on the way to recovery. I came through my CBT quite literally not knowing who I was because in forty-odd years I'd been fed so much shit about how weak and worthless I was, I believed it all. The irony is that much of it came from people who loved me and who wanted the best for me, and because of their own (Christian) upbringing believed the way to make me turn out right was to shame me into it. It's no surprise then that my relationships followed a similar pattern.
Part of healthy self esteem is accepting the imperfections; they make us who we are. But as you say, they don't define us; indeed, what we regard as our flaws can sometimes be utilised to the benefit of others and ourselves.
I don't come from a background populated by evil swivel eyed Christians but come from a background where for some status and material acquisitivism was the expectation. Therefore in the circles I could not avoid moving in I have felt that I was never seen to have arrived at the appropriate station in life by people who for some reason thought they had exceeded theirs.
But that has been a problem for ALL OUR ESTEEMS in todays society since we are constantly reminded of the personal inadequacy of ourselves in terms of what we have and our ability to get it.
It cannot help those in difficulty mentally to have a national leadership insisting that any problems they incur in the social Darwinian struggle are anything but their own fault nor a fellow population who agree with them.
-
O, I've had severe anxiety and improving self esteem (possibly through CBT) is part of the recommended recovery now. Maybe 'cause' isn't the right word, but low self esteem (often beginning in infancy) is recognised by experts as being one of the things that needs fixing on the way to recovery. I came through my CBT quite literally not knowing who I was because in forty-odd years I'd been fed so much shit about how weak and worthless I was, I believed it all. The irony is that much of it came from people who loved me and who wanted the best for me, and because of their own (Christian) upbringing believed the way to make me turn out right was to shame me into it. It's no surprise then that my relationships followed a similar pattern.
Thankfully my Aspergers' went undiagnosed through childhood - whilst not having any justification for my behavioural differences created issues, at least I didn't have to put up with the significant stigma that would have been attached at that time to what is still pitched as a mental 'problem', but is really simply an acknowledgment of a difference in attitude.
CBT is widely prescribed for autistic children, and I'm in two minds on it. For some of the most severe cases it offers an opportunity to mimic acceptable behaviours without understanding them - affording them and their families opportunities to take part in everyday life that would otherwise be difficult - but it is predicated on the idea that understanding will follow the behaviour, and that simply isn't the case with autistics, necessarily. Instead you have little autistic robots, blindly following a script to afford other people comfort - as opposed, of course, given the nature of autism, to have autistic children probably following their own script to afford them comfort, often to the detriment of those around them.
Part of healthy self esteem is accepting the imperfections; they make us who we are. But as you say, they don't define us; indeed, what we regard as our flaws can sometimes be utilised to the benefit of others and ourselves.
I don't really like the term 'imperfections'. The implication there is that there is a perfect, somewhere - that variety of humanity is perfection, it affords us versatility and differing viewpoints. We aren't whole individually, we are part of a community, and perfection lies not in our individual capacity but what we can achieve as a collective.
O.
[/quote]
-
The irony is that much of it came from people who loved me and who wanted the best for me, and because of their own (Christian) upbringing believed the way to make me turn out right was to shame me into it. It's no surprise then that my relationships followed a similar pattern.
Not sure that a Christian upbringing leads to a belief that "the way to make me turn out right was to shame me into it". It certainly wasn't the case in my upbringing or that of my siblings; conversely, I have seen this method being used by families who don't subscribe to Christianity.
-
Some posters bang on about my childhood experiences where religion is concerned. Undoubtedly it didn't do me any favours at all, however I am now 65 and well able to put things into perspective. I know for a fact there are some wonderful Christians out there like my own kids, for instance. However, decent Christians tend to be the ones who have a live and let live approach to the faith and don't try to impose it on others, they let their deeds do the talking. I have a problem with Christians, like some on this forum, who state as FACT something which is only a matter of belief with no evidence to substantiate their claims. They don't seem to take on board that the Bible isn't evidence when it comes to less than credible events like the resurrection. Saying there were eye witnesses means zilch! Eye witnesses claim to have seen the Angel of Mons and the Virgin Mary popping up in various places like Lourdes, YEH RIGHT! ::)
I have no problem with people having a faith, providing they don't force it down the throat of others, use it as an excuse for abuse, or state as FACT something which is only a belief.
-
Some posters bang on about my childhood experiences where religion is concerned.
I suspect that if you were to look at the breakdown of posts that refer to your childhood experiences, you would be responsible for a huge proportion oif them.
However, decent Christians tend to be the ones who have a live and let live approach to the faith and don't try to impose it on others, they let their deeds do the talking.
Have you tried to let your actions do the talking in a virtual world, Floo. ;)
I have a problem with Christians, like some on this forum, who state as FACT something which is only a matter of belief with no evidence to substantiate their claims. They don't seem to take on board that the Bible isn't evidence when it comes to less than credible events like the resurrection. Saying there were eye witnesses means zilch! Eye witnesses claim to have seen the Angel of Mons and the Virgin Mary popping up in various places like Lourdes, YEH RIGHT! ::)
Yet, you are happy to believe in the all-powerfulness of science which is based massively on human assumptions and the problem that much is extrapolated from comparatively short-term results. That isn't to say that science isn't worth exploring and/or following; just that faith and religion aren't in competition.
I have no problem with people having a faith, providing they don't force it down the throat of others, use it as an excuse for abuse, or state as FACT something which is only a belief.
So it's acceptable for you to force your own belief system 'down the throat of others, use it as an excuse for abuse, or state as FACT something which is only a belief', but no-one else is allowed to express their opinion, argue that the nature of evidence extends beyond merely the physical, or point out that documentary evidence is evidence.
-
Some posters bang on about my childhood experiences where religion is concerned.
I suspect that if you were to look at the breakdown of posts that refer to your childhood experiences, you would be responsible for a huge proportion oif them.
However, decent Christians tend to be the ones who have a live and let live approach to the faith and don't try to impose it on others, they let their deeds do the talking.
Have you tried to let your actions do the talking in a virtual world, Floo. ;)
I have a problem with Christians, like some on this forum, who state as FACT something which is only a matter of belief with no evidence to substantiate their claims. They don't seem to take on board that the Bible isn't evidence when it comes to less than credible events like the resurrection. Saying there were eye witnesses means zilch! Eye witnesses claim to have seen the Angel of Mons and the Virgin Mary popping up in various places like Lourdes, YEH RIGHT! ::)
Yet, you are happy to believe in the all-powerfulness of science which is based massively on human assumptions and the problem that much is extrapolated from comparatively short-term results. That isn't to say that science isn't worth exploring and/or following; just that faith and religion aren't in competition.
I have no problem with people having a faith, providing they don't force it down the throat of others, use it as an excuse for abuse, or state as FACT something which is only a belief.
So it's acceptable for you to force your own belief system 'down the throat of others, use it as an excuse for abuse, or state as FACT something which is only a belief', but no-one else is allowed to express their opinion, argue that the nature of evidence extends beyond merely the physical, or point out that documentary evidence is evidence.
Oh dear Hope you don't get it do you? I doubt you ever will! ::)
You have no evidence, only a belief. You have never put up any credible evidence to support your faith, even though you claim you have. I am not the only one pointing this out to you!
-
O, I've had severe anxiety and improving self esteem (possibly through CBT) is part of the recommended recovery now. Maybe 'cause' isn't the right word, but low self esteem (often beginning in infancy) is recognised by experts as being one of the things that needs fixing on the way to recovery. I came through my CBT quite literally not knowing who I was because in forty-odd years I'd been fed so much shit about how weak and worthless I was, I believed it all. The irony is that much of it came from people who loved me and who wanted the best for me, and because of their own (Christian) upbringing believed the way to make me turn out right was to shame me into it. It's no surprise then that my relationships followed a similar pattern.
Part of healthy self esteem is accepting the imperfections; they make us who we are. But as you say, they don't define us; indeed, what we regard as our flaws can sometimes be utilised to the benefit of others and ourselves.
I don't come from a background populated by evil swivel eyed Christians but come from a background where for some status and material acquisitivism was the expectation. Therefore in the circles I could not avoid moving in I have felt that I was never seen to have arrived at the appropriate station in life by people who for some reason thought they had exceeded theirs.
But that has been a problem for ALL OUR ESTEEMS in todays society since we are constantly reminded of the personal inadequacy of ourselves in terms of what we have and our ability to get it.
It cannot help those in difficulty mentally to have a national leadership insisting that any problems they incur in the social Darwinian struggle are anything but their own fault nor a fellow population who agree with them.
You do know that there are Christians who also judge others according to class, status, job and material wealth, right?
-
The irony is that much of it came from people who loved me and who wanted the best for me, and because of their own (Christian) upbringing believed the way to make me turn out right was to shame me into it. It's no surprise then that my relationships followed a similar pattern.
Not sure that a Christian upbringing leads to a belief that "the way to make me turn out right was to shame me into it". It certainly wasn't the case in my upbringing or that of my siblings; conversely, I have seen this method being used by families who don't subscribe to Christianity.
What isn't shaming about telling a believing child, or a teenager, that their natural inclinations and mistakes fracture their relationship with God? For young people actions speak louder than words and it is no good telling them that God still loves them whilst simultaneously telling them that God can't be close to them because they can't get everything 'right'.
-
What isn't shaming about telling a believing child, or a teenager, that their natural inclinations and mistakes fracture their relationship with God? For young people actions speak louder than words and it is no good telling them that God still loves them whilst simultaneously telling them that God can't be close to them because they can't get everything 'right'.
This is your natural inclination - that presumably God was happy enough to give you - but we're going to tell you that it's morally wrong despite it very obviously not causing anybody any pain or suffering. We're going to tell you that what you instinctively feel is fundamentally immoral and an offense to God, but don't feel that says anything about you...
Mixed signals much?
Hate the sin, love the sinner? How do you differentiate a person from the traits and characteristics that make them who they are?
O.
-
O, I've had severe anxiety and improving self esteem (possibly through CBT) is part of the recommended recovery now. Maybe 'cause' isn't the right word, but low self esteem (often beginning in infancy) is recognised by experts as being one of the things that needs fixing on the way to recovery. I came through my CBT quite literally not knowing who I was because in forty-odd years I'd been fed so much shit about how weak and worthless I was, I believed it all. The irony is that much of it came from people who loved me and who wanted the best for me, and because of their own (Christian) upbringing believed the way to make me turn out right was to shame me into it. It's no surprise then that my relationships followed a similar pattern.
Thankfully my Aspergers' went undiagnosed through childhood - whilst not having any justification for my behavioural differences created issues, at least I didn't have to put up with the significant stigma that would have been attached at that time to what is still pitched as a mental 'problem', but is really simply an acknowledgment of a difference in attitude.
CBT is widely prescribed for autistic children, and I'm in two minds on it. For some of the most severe cases it offers an opportunity to mimic acceptable behaviours without understanding them - affording them and their families opportunities to take part in everyday life that would otherwise be difficult - but it is predicated on the idea that understanding will follow the behaviour, and that simply isn't the case with autistics, necessarily. Instead you have little autistic robots, blindly following a script to afford other people comfort - as opposed, of course, given the nature of autism, to have autistic children probably following their own script to afford them comfort, often to the detriment of those around them.
Part of healthy self esteem is accepting the imperfections; they make us who we are. But as you say, they don't define us; indeed, what we regard as our flaws can sometimes be utilised to the benefit of others and ourselves.
I don't really like the term 'imperfections'. The implication there is that there is a perfect, somewhere - that variety of humanity is perfection, it affords us versatility and differing viewpoints. We aren't whole individually, we are part of a community, and perfection lies not in our individual capacity but what we can achieve as a collective.
O.
[/quote]
It's a shame that there is still such a stigma around Aspergers. I guess the stereotype - Reid from Criminal Minds springs to mind - might not be helpful.
I hadn't heard that CBT is used for children with autism - I can't even begin to get how that works to be honest. I only have my own experience to go by but for me it works as a good treatment for symptoms - it will get you functioning normally again and give you a 'first aid kit' of things to draw on if/when things feel rough again. But it doesn't get down to the root causes and shed light on the whys of our dysfunctional thinking, and my experience is that it works best to take both approaches.
As for imperfections, I get where you are coming from but the reality is that there is no such thing as perfection. In transactional analysis (itself an imperfect system) one of the recognised human 'drivers' is 'be perfect' and 'be imperfect' is something I think we need to embrace.
That said, something I always tell my kids is that we are all perfect for who we are meant to be.
-
What isn't shaming about telling a believing child, or a teenager, that their natural inclinations and mistakes fracture their relationship with God? For young people actions speak louder than words and it is no good telling them that God still loves them whilst simultaneously telling them that God can't be close to them because they can't get everything 'right'.
This is your natural inclination - that presumably God was happy enough to give you - but we're going to tell you that it's morally wrong despite it very obviously not causing anybody any pain or suffering. We're going to tell you that what you instinctively feel is fundamentally immoral and an offense to God, but don't feel that says anything about you...
Mixed signals much?
Hate the sin, love the sinner? How do you differentiate a person from the traits and characteristics that make them who they are?
O.
Indeed. It's been a relief to leave this stuff behind.
-
You do know that there are Christians who also judge others according to class, status, job and material wealth, right?
Quite Rhi - this is something I have never understood about Vlad's stance - I can't actually see a difference in the way Christians or others approach this part of our existence.
In other words I have known atheists who are not in the least bit concerned with worldly things and live frugal lifestyles whislt I have know Christians who embrace all the trappings of a materialistic approach to life - and, of course, vicky versatile.
The approach to this aspect of life doesn't appear to me to be solely attributable to a belief or lack thereof - but to some other factor/thinking that people apply to their lives.
-
You do know that there are Christians who also judge others according to class, status, job and material wealth, right?
Quite Rhi - this is something I have never understood about Vlad's stance - I can't actually see a difference in the way Christians or others approach this part of our existence.
In other words I have known atheists who are not in the least bit concerned with worldly things and live frugal lifestyles whislt I have know Christians who embrace all the trappings of a materialistic approach to life - and, of course, vicky versatile.
The approach to this aspect of life doesn't appear to me to be attributable to a belief or lack thereof - but to some other factor/thinking that people apply to their lives.
Just countering the Disneyworld of evil swivel eyed Christians as peddled on this forum and the oh for a 'Bright' childhood routine.
Rhiannon has just sniped at Christian parenthood mention after mention.
Yes but it's not countering it - it's just making the same stupid arguments they make. I know from some of your posts that you are funny and intelligent and I don't see why you have to apply the same kind of blanket condemnation of non-beleivers that some but by no means all Atheists/believers of other religions use against Christians. It just makes your arguments less convincing.
-
Quite Rhi - this is something I have never understood about Vlad's stance - I can't actually see a difference in the way Christians or others approach this part of our existence.
In other words I have known atheists who are not in the least bit concerned with worldly things and live frugal lifestyles whislt I have know Christians who embrace all the trappings of a materialistic approach to life - and, of course, vicky versatile.
The approach to this aspect of life doesn't appear to me to be solely attributable to a belief or lack thereof - but to some other factor/thinking that people apply to their lives.
John Oliver's turn on the televangelist adherents of 'Prosperity Gospel' last weekend being a pertinent case in point.
O.
-
Being a TV evangelist seems to be a very lucrative business to be in, I don't think any of them are poor! A few months ago one of their ilk wanted his own private jet, paid for by the gullible, so he could spread his version of the gospel far and wide! ::)
-
Oh dear Hope you don't get it do you? I doubt you ever will! ::)
You have no evidence, only a belief. You have never put up any credible evidence to support your faith, even though you claim you have. I am not the only one pointing this out to you!
Sorry, Floo, but it is you who don't get it. I have nothing against science, and fully understand the value and nature of the scientific method of garnering evidence. However, as a human being (note that this isn't my faith speaking) I do not believe that science and scientific methods are the sole way of describing and defining the universe and everything within it. You do, and you have the right to do so (despite the fact that you have no more evidence to prove that your belief is any more correct than mine).
That is why I have said on a number of occasions on a number of threads that threads whereby you and others seek to dismiss faith as having no evidence in support of it are pointless, in the same way that some started by Sass and the like are pointless - as the two sides of the debate aren't even speaking the same 'language'.
-
Being a TV evangelist seems to be a very lucrative business to be in, I don't think any of them are poor! A few months ago one of their ilk wanted his own private jet, paid for by the gullible, so he could spread his version of the gospel far and wide! ::)
In other words, those particular evangelists are not dissimilar to some politicians, bankers, atheist and religious authors ;), 'business' men and woman. So what? We all know that there are shysters in every area of life.
-
You do know that there are Christians who also judge others according to class, status, job and material wealth, right?
I think that this would be better put, and more representative of all parts of humanity if you were to replace the word 'Christians' with 'people' or 'human beings'. It isn't something restricted to religious people, be they Christians, Muslims, Jews, or whatever, though there are 'judges' amongst those categories.
-
Oh dear Hope you don't get it do you? I doubt you ever will! ::)
You have no evidence, only a belief. You have never put up any credible evidence to support your faith, even though you claim you have. I am not the only one pointing this out to you!
Sorry, Floo, but it is you who don't get it. I have nothing against science, and fully understand the value and nature of the scientific method of garnering evidence. However, as a human being (note that this isn't my faith speaking) I do not believe that science and scientific methods are the sole way of describing and defining the universe and everything within it. You do, and you have the right to do so (despite the fact that you have no more evidence to prove that your belief is any more correct than mine).
That is why I have said on a number of occasions on a number of threads that threads whereby you and others seek to dismiss faith as having no evidence in support of it are pointless, in the same way that some started by Sass and the like are pointless - as the two sides of the debate aren't even speaking the same 'language'.
There is NO EVIDENCE to support your belief in a deity! Of course you are entitled to believe in anything you wish to believe in, just as I am entitled to disbelieve. As I have said before, on a good number of occasions, if the deity does exist, why does it play silly beggars and instead of making its existence a matter of faith, why not a matter of fact by revealing itself to all humans in a way which is indisputable?
-
Being a TV evangelist seems to be a very lucrative business to be in, I don't think any of them are poor! A few months ago one of their ilk wanted his own private jet, paid for by the gullible, so he could spread his version of the gospel far and wide! ::)
How many TV evangelists are there in the UK though? How is that relevant here. Still I suppose some might like to pretend to be an American style campaigning atheist in secular Britain where being an atheist means being part of a mundane vast non believing majority.
-
Being a TV evangelist seems to be a very lucrative business to be in, I don't think any of them are poor! A few months ago one of their ilk wanted his own private jet, paid for by the gullible, so he could spread his version of the gospel far and wide! ::)
How many TV evangelists are there in the UK though? How is that relevant here. Still I suppose some might like to pretend to be an American style campaigning atheist in secular Britain where being an atheist means being part of a mundane vast non believing majority.
Dearie me. This doesn't exactly tie in with your logic on your misbegotten idea of atheism/antitheism being a delusion then. According to this part of your posting that would, if you accept that it is merely about numbers, mean that you are then forced to declare theism in the UK as a delusion.
I think you better think it out again
-
Now trying to be clever really doesn't work as a look for you, Hope.
But at least it looks better for me than your daftness. I realise that you not believe that Jesus was God, and that he was simply a human being like Socrates; unfortunately, that is an assumption that has no more supporting evidence than my belief, and possibly less.
Evidence in the legal, historical and scientific senses is all naturalistic. To have the evidence you claim, would need as had been pointed out many many times a methodology. You have never provided one, despite being asked. Your point fails even to rise to the level of speciousness
Which makes me wonder why the antichristians throw a kind of cordon round the resurrection to prevent thorough historical analysis and promote philosophical explanations over it.
You really are out of touch. Analysis of the Resurrection has been the subject of thorough historico-critical debate by liberal Christians for decades, perhaps a couple of centuries. The 'Christ Event' (a term which telescopes the Resurrection, Ascension and Glorification into one phenomenon) is seen by such people as not a n external literal resuscitation of a dead body and its transmogrification into something that was somehow physico-spiritual (or whatever fantastical scenario we are supposed to swallow, depending on which NT author we read) - but an internal psychological reality for the disciples themselves.
As Jeremy has already pointed out, the details of the gospel stories were filled in - invented - later.
Schweitzer, Tillich, Bultmann, Spong, Bish. Robinson, even Bonhoeffer - none of these go in for the literalism that you wish to foist on us.
Not forgetting Richard Holloway
-
There is NO EVIDENCE to support your belief in a deity! Of course you are entitled to believe in anything you wish to believe in, just as I am entitled to disbelieve.
A (dis)belief for which there is no more evidence than for mine.
As I have said before, on a good number of occasions, if the deity does exist, why does it play silly beggars and instead of making its existence a matter of faith, why not a matter of fact by revealing itself to all humans in a way which is indisputable?
Because, as I and others have equally 'said before, on a good number of occasions', he has given us brains to explore and discern, and doesn't want people to believe in him because they have no choice, preferring people who make a choice. It's called freedom of choice, or freewill.
-
Now trying to be clever really doesn't work as a look for you, Hope.
But at least it looks better for me than your daftness. I realise that you not believe that Jesus was God, and that he was simply a human being like Socrates; unfortunately, that is an assumption that has no more supporting evidence than my belief, and possibly less.
Evidence in the legal, historical and scientific senses is all naturalistic. To have the evidence you claim, would need as had been pointed out many many times a methodology. You have never provided one, despite being asked. Your point fails even to rise to the level of speciousness
Which makes me wonder why the antichristians throw a kind of cordon round the resurrection to prevent thorough historical analysis and promote philosophical explanations over it.
How do you do an historical analysis (a naturalistic methodology)of a supernatural claim? Note, no cordon, just asking once again for a methodology, which in true Mystic Meg mode, I predict you will not attempt to provide but instead indulge in mendacious evasions.
-
There is NO EVIDENCE to support your belief in a deity! Of course you are entitled to believe in anything you wish to believe in, just as I am entitled to disbelieve.
A (dis)belief for which there is no more evidence than for mine.
Your claim, your burden of proof. Is it that, after all these years, and the literally hundreds, if not thousands, of times this has been pointed out to, that you still fail to understand this? Or is it that you have decided to ignore it and argue vacuously fallacy laden approaches because you are happy about dissembling?
-
There is NO EVIDENCE to support your belief in a deity! Of course you are entitled to believe in anything you wish to believe in, just as I am entitled to disbelieve.
A (dis)belief for which there is no more evidence than for mine.
As I have said before, on a good number of occasions, if the deity does exist, why does it play silly beggars and instead of making its existence a matter of faith, why not a matter of fact by revealing itself to all humans in a way which is indisputable?
Because, as I and others have equally 'said before, on a good number of occasions', he has given us brains to explore and discern, and doesn't want people to believe in him because they have no choice, preferring people who make a choice. It's called freedom of choice, or freewill.
Which is fine, apart from the fact that non-belief results in damnation.
-
Analysis of the Resurrection has been the subject of thorough historico-critical debate by liberal Christians for decades, perhaps a couple of centuries. The 'Christ Event' (a term which telescopes the Resurrection, Ascension and Glorification into one phenomenon) is seen by such people as not a n external literal resuscitation of a dead body and its transmogrification into something that was somehow physico-spiritual (or whatever fantastical scenario we are supposed to swallow, depending on which NT author we read) - but an internal psychological reality for the disciples themselves.
And there is equally scholarly material that shows that this is a false understanding - including some by liberal Christian academics.
As Jeremy has already pointed out, the details of the gospel stories were filled in - invented - later.
A statement for which neither you nor he have any evidence, by the way. This isn't a new idea; it's been around for almost as long as Christianity itself - yet no-one has managed to produce any evidence to support the theory
Schweitzer, Tillich, Bultmann, Spong, Bish. Robinson, even Bonhoeffer - none of these go in for the literalism that you wish to foist on us.
Yet, neither do they provide any evidence for their understandings. Be careful with Spong and Robinson; I've heard liberal theologians dismantle their arguments with one virtual arm behind their virtual backs.
Incidentally, why don't you provide Spong with the honorific he is entitled to?
-
Which is fine, apart from the fact that non-belief results in damnation.
Since when? It doesn't say that in the Bible or in Jesus' teachings (though I will agree that some branches of the Church like to teach it, like some like to teach the Prosperity Gospel).
-
I think you better think it out again
That would make a great lyric for a song ;)
-
I think you better think it out again
That would make a great lyric for a song ;)
Indeed, it is one of my all time favourites
http://www.youtube.com/?#/watch?v=OCAyBb0yyaE
-
Being a TV evangelist seems to be a very lucrative business to be in, I don't think any of them are poor! A few months ago one of their ilk wanted his own private jet, paid for by the gullible, so he could spread his version of the gospel far and wide! ::)
How many TV evangelists are there in the UK though? How is that relevant here. Still I suppose some might like to pretend to be an American style campaigning atheist in secular Britain where being an atheist means being part of a mundane vast non believing majority.
Dearie me. This doesn't exactly tie in with your logic on your misbegotten idea of atheism/antitheism being a delusion then. According to this part of your posting that would, if you accept that it is merely about numbers, mean that you are then forced to declare theism in the UK as a delusion.
I think you better think it out again
What has seeking out American antitheist media borne partly out of being in oppressive and suspicious theist majority in order to pep up a mundane british atheist existence got to do with the possible delusional aspects of antitheism?
-
There is NO EVIDENCE to support your belief in a deity! Of course you are entitled to believe in anything you wish to believe in, just as I am entitled to disbelieve.
A (dis)belief for which there is no more evidence than for mine.
Wrong. This atheist is an atheist - I suspect this is true for the vast majority - for a variety of reasons but in this context, principally:
1) The world does not in any way, shape or form look as we would expect the world to look if the claims made by theists about their gods are true. This is especially true for the traditional omnimax god (omniscient; omnipotent; omnipresent; omnibenevolent) of the monotheist. The world does not operate the way it would be expected to operate if such an entity existed; there is direct prima facie evidence against the existence of such a thing. That's why so many very silly people down the ages right up to the present day have wasted so much of their time and performed so many anti-intellectual contortions and done so many mental gymnastics trying to square the circle by attempting to make the existence of such a deity compatible with a world every part of which denies its existence. (This after all is why you are required to have faith, yes?). Your assertion that there is at least parity between theism and atheism is therefore on its face entirely false.
Of course, if you want to start pulling away these traditional attributes in some sort of cosmic game of Jenga, such that omnipotence doesn't actually mean omnipotence and omnibenevolence isn't really omnibenevolence, be my guest. Theists are very good at this sort of greasy, slippery logic-chopping, because if we know anything about most theists most of the time it's that the disproof-proof, indefeasible god-belief has to be defended no matter how absurd and ridiculous the conclusions it leads to, rather than accept that it's the pile of fetid dingo's kidneys that it actually is.
2) There is not one single feature of the world, not anything, anywhere, ever, which requires the positing of gods in order to further understanding of the world. Quite the opposite; invoking the supernatural is inimical to real understanding - as has been said here many a time, postulating the existence of entities you can't define doing things you don't understand by means you can't explain doesn't allow for the world to be explicable and rationally understandable; it makes it a random, capricious, incoherent mess, where any entity you like can do anything it likes any time it likes for no reason.
Positing gods isn't the furtherance of understanding; it is the death of understanding.
As I have said before, on a good number of occasions, if the deity does exist, why does it play silly beggars and instead of making its existence a matter of faith, why not a matter of fact by revealing itself to all humans in a way which is indisputable?
Because, as I and others have equally 'said before, on a good number of occasions', he has given us brains to explore and discern, and doesn't want people to believe in him because they have no choice, preferring people who make a choice. It's called freedom of choice, or freewill.
1) Bald assertion with zero evidence to substantiate it.
2) There is no proof that we even possess such a thing as free will, no matter how many times Alan Burns screws up his eyes, clenches his fists and insists that we do.
3) Believing that is not the same at all as obeying - a point I covered in some detail just two weeks ago:
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=10333.msg543317#msg543317
-
Now trying to be clever really doesn't work as a look for you, Hope.
But at least it looks better for me than your daftness. I realise that you not believe that Jesus was God, and that he was simply a human being like Socrates; unfortunately, that is an assumption that has no more supporting evidence than my belief, and possibly less.
Evidence in the legal, historical and scientific senses is all naturalistic. To have the evidence you claim, would need as had been pointed out many many times a methodology. You have never provided one, despite being asked. Your point fails even to rise to the level of speciousness
Which makes me wonder why the antichristians throw a kind of cordon round the resurrection to prevent thorough historical analysis and promote philosophical explanations over it.
How do you do an historical analysis (a naturalistic methodology)of a supernatural claim? Note, no cordon, just asking once again for a methodology, which in true Mystic Meg mode, I predict you will not attempt to provide but instead indulge in mendacious evasions.
But the resurrection is also a material event. Empirically witnessed.
Observed. Are all past events susceptible to scientific investigation? what about the unique historical event? So yep, the resurrection is susceptible to historical study. Whether it is able to conclude that the resurrection was a supernatural event, i'm not sure.
-
Now trying to be clever really doesn't work as a look for you, Hope.
But at least it looks better for me than your daftness. I realise that you not believe that Jesus was God, and that he was simply a human being like Socrates; unfortunately, that is an assumption that has no more supporting evidence than my belief, and possibly less.
Evidence in the legal, historical and scientific senses is all naturalistic. To have the evidence you claim, would need as had been pointed out many many times a methodology. You have never provided one, despite being asked. Your point fails even to rise to the level of speciousness
Which makes me wonder why the antichristians throw a kind of cordon round the resurrection to prevent thorough historical analysis and promote philosophical explanations over it.
How do you do an historical analysis (a naturalistic methodology)of a supernatural claim? Note, no cordon, just asking once again for a methodology, which in true Mystic Meg mode, I predict you will not attempt to provide but instead indulge in mendacious evasions.
But the resurrection is also a material event. Empirically witnessed.
Observed. Are all past events susceptible to scientific investigation? what about the unique historical event? So yep, the resurrection is susceptible to historical study. Whether it is able to conclude that the resurrection was a supernatural event, i'm not sure.
Nope, history as a study is methodologically naturalistic. Note I didn't mention science, just historical analysis.
-
Which is fine, apart from the fact that non-belief results in damnation.
Since when? It doesn't say that in the Bible or in Jesus' teachings (though I will agree that some branches of the Church like to teach it, like some like to teach the Prosperity Gospel).
So you are a universalist then?
-
Which is fine, apart from the fact that non-belief results in damnation.
Since when? It doesn't say that in the Bible or in Jesus' teachings (though I will agree that some branches of the Church like to teach it, like some like to teach the Prosperity Gospel).
How would you interpret John 3:18 then?
-
Which is fine, apart from the fact that non-belief results in damnation.
Since when? It doesn't say that in the Bible or in Jesus' teachings (though I will agree that some branches of the Church like to teach it, like some like to teach the Prosperity Gospel).
How would you interpret John 3:18 then?
That he who does not believe would be judged - to have decided that he doesn't want to have full relationship with God. Look at v. 16-21 to get the context - And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil. For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed. But whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that his works have been carried out in God.
Jesus came not to judge, but to save.
-
Jesus stayed dead too.
Your evidence, please.
If he's still alive, let him show himself.
Hello Jesus, wakey wakey!
This is an ex-prophet.
-
As there is no verifiable evidence to the contrary, it is a reasonable assumption that Jesus is a rotted corpse somewhere in the Middle East, as when one dies one stays dead!
There is documentary evidence to the contrary, Floo, so, I repeat, where is your evidence.
Corpses almost always rot. Surely you are not disputing that.
-
So you are a universalist then?
I do not have the slightest idea how you got from my post to your response, Rhi. I suppose you could call me a universalist, in so far as Jesus offers salvation to every human being - rather than to a particular ethnic group, tribe, nation, gender, age-group, ... In other words, the offer is universal.
-
Corpses almost always rot. Surely you are not disputing that.
Human Corpses always rot, unless they are dismembered, and defleshed before that can happen - but then, are we talking about a purely human body with Jesus? You will say 'Yes, we are'; I and other Christians will say 'No, we're not'.
-
If he's still alive, let him show himself.
Hello Jesus, wakey wakey!
This is an ex-prophet.
Jesus taught that, as Christians, we are to act as his hands, feet, arms, legs ... - 'body' - here on earth. So, assuming you know Christians, you will be meeting with Jesus on pretty much a weekly, if not a daily basis.
-
Now trying to be clever really doesn't work as a look for you, Hope.
But at least it looks better for me than your daftness. I realise that you not believe that Jesus was God, and that he was simply a human being like Socrates; unfortunately, that is an assumption that has no more supporting evidence than my belief, and possibly less.
Evidence in the legal, historical and scientific senses is all naturalistic. To have the evidence you claim, would need as had been pointed out many many times a methodology. You have never provided one, despite being asked. Your point fails even to rise to the level of speciousness
Which makes me wonder why the antichristians throw a kind of cordon round the resurrection to prevent thorough historical analysis and promote philosophical explanations over it.
How do you do an historical analysis (a naturalistic methodology)of a supernatural claim? Note, no cordon, just asking once again for a methodology, which in true Mystic Meg mode, I predict you will not attempt to provide but instead indulge in mendacious evasions.
But the resurrection is also a material event. Empirically witnessed.
Observed. Are all past events susceptible to scientific investigation? what about the unique historical event? So yep, the resurrection is susceptible to historical study. Whether it is able to conclude that the resurrection was a supernatural event, i'm not sure.
Nope, history as a study is methodologically naturalistic. Note I didn't mention science, just historical analysis.
No, I think you are actually confusing three things here, science, history, and the belief which comes from repeated results that that occurs ad infinitum.
The resurrection is posited as a supernatural event, a physical event (other wise where would our ideas of bodily resurrection come from?) and a unique historical event.
Even if history is methodologically naturalist we can use it to study
unique physical historical events.
There is no barrier to it's use. That there is a Gordon sanitaire around it for antitheists around it is due therefore to at best misunderstanding and at worst intellectual dishonesty.
-
Not confusing anything, dear Vlad. Tell me how you determine a non naturalistic event using a naturalistic methodology? Been asking it for years now, you never answer. Why is that?
-
Quite like Gordon sanitaire though. That is witty.
-
Corpses almost always rot. Surely you are not disputing that.
Human Corpses always rot, unless they are dismembered, and defleshed before that can happen - but then, are we talking about a purely human body with Jesus? You will say 'Yes, we are'; I and other Christians will say 'No, we're not'.
... and the latter group have not a scrap of evidence for their belief, since that's exactly what it is and all it is - a belief.
-
... and the latter group have not a scrap of evidence for their belief, since that's exactly what it is and all it is - a belief.
Do the former group have any evidence for their belief?
-
... and the latter group have not a scrap of evidence for their belief, since that's exactly what it is and all it is - a belief.
Do the former group have any evidence for their belief?
That the genuinely dead are, well, dead and remain so? Yes ... rather a lot of it.
-
... and the latter group have not a scrap of evidence for their belief, since that's exactly what it is and all it is - a belief.
Do the former group have any evidence for their belief?
That the genuinely dead are, well, dead and remain so? Yes ... rather a lot of it.
Rot!
-
Precisely ;)
-
Jesus taught that, as Christians, we are to act as his hands, feet, arms, legs
You pretending to be a bit of Jesus doesn't make hm alive.
If he's alive, why doesn't he go on The One Show?
-
... and the latter group have not a scrap of evidence for their belief, since that's exactly what it is and all it is - a belief.
Do the former group have any evidence for their belief?
You understand you are challenging the idea that human bodies rot away? Do you know how foolish that makes you look?
-
... and the latter group have not a scrap of evidence for their belief, since that's exactly what it is and all it is - a belief.
Do the former group have any evidence for their belief?
You understand you are challenging the idea that human bodies rot away? Do you know how foolish that makes you look?
I don't think anybody challenges that, just the idea that it is science rather than belief in repeated results and with a mind that
one challenges science provisionality by claiming impossibility.
I think it's being claimed as a miracle. A witnessed unique historical event.
-
... and the latter group have not a scrap of evidence for their belief, since that's exactly what it is and all it is - a belief.
Do the former group have any evidence for their belief?
You understand you are challenging the idea that human bodies rot away? Do you know how foolish that makes you look?
I don't think anybody challenges that, just the idea that it is science rather than belief in repeated results and with a mind that
one challenges science provisionality by claiming impossibility.
I think it's being claimed as a miracle. A witnessed unique historical event.
And no methodology for establishing such a claim
-
... and the latter group have not a scrap of evidence for their belief, since that's exactly what it is and all it is - a belief.
Do the former group have any evidence for their belief?
You understand you are challenging the idea that human bodies rot away? Do you know how foolish that makes you look?
I don't think anybody challenges that, just the idea that it is science rather than belief in repeated results and with a mind that
one challenges science provisionality by claiming impossibility.
I think it's being claimed as a miracle. A witnessed unique historical event.
And no methodology for establishing such a claim
Resign.
-
Poor Vlad, reduced to crying.
-
So you are a universalist then?
I do not have the slightest idea how you got from my post to your response, Rhi. I suppose you could call me a universalist, in so far as Jesus offers salvation to every human being - rather than to a particular ethnic group, tribe, nation, gender, age-group, ... In other words, the offer is universal.
Do I have to take that offer in this life?
-
There is NO EVIDENCE to support your belief in a deity! Of course you are entitled to believe in anything you wish to believe in, just as I am entitled to disbelieve.
A (dis)belief for which there is no more evidence than for mine.
As I have said before, on a good number of occasions, if the deity does exist, why does it play silly beggars and instead of making its existence a matter of faith, why not a matter of fact by revealing itself to all humans in a way which is indisputable?
Because, as I and others have equally 'said before, on a good number of occasions', he has given us brains to explore and discern, and doesn't want people to believe in him because they have no choice, preferring people who make a choice. It's called freedom of choice, or freewill.
What a daft excuse Hope that really takes the biscuit! ::) If the deity, should it exist, being such a crazy b*stard it doesn't deserve people to believe in it! >:(
-
What a daft excuse Hope that really takes the biscuit! ::) If the deity, should it exist, be such a crazy b*stard it doesn't deserve people to believe in it! >:(
Allowing people to make a choice means that one is a "crazy b*stard"? In which case, that describes you, as you clearly allowed your children to make their own choices.
-
Do I have to take that offer in this life?
Do you have another one, as a human being?
-
You understand you are challenging the idea that human bodies rot away?
No, I am not, challenging that fact. What I am challenging is the assumption that some here make, that Jesus was merely/purely human.
-
What a daft excuse Hope that really takes the biscuit! ::) If the deity, should it exist, be such a crazy b*stard it doesn't deserve people to believe in it! >:(
Allowing people to make a choice means that one is a "crazy b*stard"? In which case, that describes you, as you clearly allowed your children to make their own choices.
Allowing them the choice, but if they don't make the 'right' one apparently there are consequences, certainly makes it a psycho!
-
What a daft excuse Hope that really takes the biscuit! ::) If the deity, should it exist, be such a crazy b*stard it doesn't deserve people to believe in it! >:(
Allowing people to make a choice means that one is a "crazy b*stard"? In which case, that describes you, as you clearly allowed your children to make their own choices.
No, I think the idea of saying 'love me', and saying that you have a choice, but then the penalty for the 'wrong' choice being eternal damnation/torment is serial-killer crazy.
Just one more reason why accepting that Christian depiction of a god is incomprehensible.
O.
-
Allowing them the choice, but if they don't make the 'right' one, apparently there are consequences, certainly makes it a psycho!
So, are you suggesting that a person should be allowed to make their own choices, but that then, when their earthly life ceases, those choices should be overridden by the deity? Certainly doesn't sound very loving to me.
-
What a daft excuse Hope that really takes the biscuit! ::) If the deity, should it exist, be such a crazy b*stard it doesn't deserve people to believe in it! >:(
Allowing people to make a choice means that one is a "crazy b*stard"? In which case, that describes you, as you clearly allowed your children to make their own choices.
No, I think the idea of saying 'love me', and saying that you have a choice, but then the penalty for the 'wrong' choice being eternal damnation/torment is serial-killer crazy.
Just one more reason why accepting that Christian depiction of a god is incomprehensible.
O.
It's akin to the sort of choice that used to be offered by Ron and Reg or Charlie Richardson and his chums back in the 60s - "Of course you don't have to pay us protection money if you don't want to. Provided that you don't have any plans for the next four months or so that involve walking, speaking or feeding yourself."
-
No, I think the idea of saying 'love me', and saying that you have a choice, but then the penalty for the 'wrong' choice being eternal damnation/torment is serial-killer crazy.
But who makes that choice, O? I believe that Floo is all about people accepting the consequences of their choices. If someone chooses to live their life without God, why should that same God override that choice once they die?
Just one more reason why accepting that Christian depiction of a god is incomprehensible.
Couldn't agree more, O. I can't think of any Christian who does accept the depiction you outline. In fact, I can't even think of any Biblical passge (not verse because they can, too easily, be taken out of context) that even suggests the depiction you seem to wish.
The only people I can think of who preach that depiction are the likes of Floo.
-
What a daft excuse Hope that really takes the biscuit! ::) If the deity, should it exist, be such a crazy b*stard it doesn't deserve people to believe in it! >:(
Allowing people to make a choice means that one is a "crazy b*stard"? In which case, that describes you, as you clearly allowed your children to make their own choices.
No, I think the idea of saying 'love me', and saying that you have a choice, but then the penalty for the 'wrong' choice being eternal damnation/torment is serial-killer crazy.
Just one more reason why accepting that Christian depiction of a god is incomprehensible.
O.
It's akin to the sort of choice that used to be offered by Ron and Reg or Charlie Richardson and his chums back in the 60s - "Of course you don't have to pay us protection money if you don't want to. Provided that you don't have any plans for the next four months or so that involve walking, speaking or feeding yourself."
Good analogy!
-
You understand you are challenging the idea that human bodies rot away?
No, I am not, challenging that fact. What I am challenging is the assumption that some here make, that Jesus was merely/purely human.
Anybody floating the idea that Jesus wasn't is the one who bears the burden of proof for demonstrating it to be the case.
Remember that we say, on the basis of rather a lot of very obvious evidence, that human beings are merely and purely human with no supernatural or paranormal powers and that when they die they die and they stay dead. Finito. If you want to make your ancient middle-eastern handyman an exception to that, it's up to you to provide the evidence that proves this to be the case.
-
It's akin to the sort of choice that used to be offered by Ron and Reg or Charlie Richardson and his chums back in the 60s - "Of course you don't have to pay us protection money if you don't want to. Provided that you don't have any plans for the next four months or so that involve walking, speaking or feeding yourself."
Precisely, Shaker; that is why I nor any Christian I know subscribe to that depiction. As I menioned to O in my previous post, it seems to be a depiction much loved of folk like Floo, but nowhere exists in Christian doctrine.
-
It's akin to the sort of choice that used to be offered by Ron and Reg or Charlie Richardson and his chums back in the 60s - "Of course you don't have to pay us protection money if you don't want to. Provided that you don't have any plans for the next four months or so that involve walking, speaking or feeding yourself."
Precisely, Shaker; that is why I nor any Christian I know subscribe to that depiction. As I menioned to O in my previous post, it seems to be a depiction much loved of folk like Floo, but nowhere exists in Christian doctrine.
I does exist in practice.
The analogy is accurate.
Do as I say or suffer. That is not a choice.
-
It's akin to the sort of choice that used to be offered by Ron and Reg or Charlie Richardson and his chums back in the 60s - "Of course you don't have to pay us protection money if you don't want to. Provided that you don't have any plans for the next four months or so that involve walking, speaking or feeding yourself."
Precisely, Shaker; that is why I nor any Christian I know subscribe to that depiction.
You should know more Christians, then.
-
But who makes that choice, O? I believe that Floo is all about people accepting the consequences of their choices. If someone chooses to live their life without God, why should that same God override that choice once they die?
If it exists, because any god would know that the evidence available doesn't support the contention 'god', and that people shouldn't be punished for reasoning.
Couldn't agree more, O. I can't think of any Christian who does accept the depiction you outline. In fact, I can't even think of any Biblical passage (not verse because they can, too easily, be taken out of context) that even suggests the depiction you seem to wish.
And yet I've come across too many 'fire and brimstone' preachers, at various times...
O.
-
Anybody floating the idea that Jesus wasn't is the one who bears the burden of proof for demonstrating it to be the case. ... If you want to make your ancient middle-eastern handyman an exception to that, it's up to you to provide the evidence that proves this to be the case.
As has been said on numerous occasions, there is documentary evidence to this effect. That you regard this with suspicion is perfectly understandable and normal. People have been treating it with suspicion since the day it happened - but no-one has ever produced solid evidence to support that suspicion. All the evidence produced has been circumstantial - like the idea that he must have been purely human, because most of us have only ever met 'purely human' beings.
-
Precisely, Shaker; that is why I nor any Christian I know subscribe to that depiction. As I menioned to O in my previous post, it seems to be a depiction much loved of folk like Floo, but nowhere exists in Christian doctrine.
Even if it's the more modern depiction of Hell as 'separation from God' in some way - oblivion or some sort of limbo - that's still an eternal punishment for the temporal 'crime' of looking for evidence, not finding it and therefore being rational.
O.
-
Anybody floating the idea that Jesus wasn't is the one who bears the burden of proof for demonstrating it to be the case. ... If you want to make your ancient middle-eastern handyman an exception to that, it's up to you to provide the evidence that proves this to be the case.
As has been said on numerous occasions, there is documentary evidence to this effect. That you regard this with suspicion is perfectly understandable and normal. People have been treating it with suspicion since the day it happened - but no-one has ever produced solid evidence to support that suspicion. All the evidence produced has been circumstantial - like the idea that he must have been purely human, because most of us have only ever met 'purely human' beings.
So do you admit that you have not met the burden of sufficient proof then?
-
And as has been said many times, you need a method for supernatural claims. History as a study is methodologically naturalistic. Care to provide your methodology, Hope, or will you evade as you have done so often, or run away like Vlad?
-
If it exists, because any god would know that the evidence available doesn't support the contention 'god', and that people shouldn't be punished for reasoning.
So, just to repeat what you are saying, God should have the right to override an individual human being's choices made during their lifetime?
And yet I've come across too many 'fire and brimstone' preachers, at various times...
So have I, but if you look at the contexts of the passages (and more often, verses) that they use as the basis of their sermons, they have nothing to do with 'fire and brimstone'. In fact, I understand from some Church history texts I read that the 'fire and brimstone' sermon didn't become common until after Dante's Divine Comedy' became popular.
-
No, I think the idea of saying 'love me', and saying that you have a choice, but then the penalty for the 'wrong' choice being eternal damnation/torment is serial-killer crazy.
But who makes that choice, O? I believe that Floo is all about people accepting the consequences of their choices. If someone chooses to live their life without God, why should that same God override that choice once they die?
Just one more reason why accepting that Christian depiction of a god is incomprehensible.
Couldn't agree more, O. I can't think of any Christian who does accept the depiction you outline. In fact, I can't even think of any Biblical passge (not verse because they can, too easily, be taken out of context) that even suggests the depiction you seem to wish.
The only people I can think of who preach that depiction are the likes of Floo.
Oh for goodness ' sake, Hope. You know we don't choose our beliefs. I've said so many times that I would once have given everything to have been able to choose to believe.
So you are not a universalist, and you do believe not making the right 'choice' leaves us damned.
Why should God 'override' that 'choice' (which is no choice at all) post-death? Because he is loving and merciful and not driven by human petty emotions? How small you make your God, Hope.
-
As has been said on numerous occasions, there is documentary evidence to this effect. That you regard this with suspicion is perfectly understandable and normal. People have been treating it with suspicion since the day it happened - but no-one has ever produced solid evidence to support that suspicion. All the evidence produced has been circumstantial - like the idea that he must have been purely human, because most of us have only ever met 'purely human' beings.
No-one needs to produce evidence to disprove it. Yes there's documentary evidence, but the documentary evidence is:
a) not by an impartial source
b) generated well after the fact
c) contaminated after its generation by subsequent add-ons (and possibly deletions) and selective translations
d) not corroborated by the expected other sources of the time.
You have documentary evidence of an allegation, which is at best as reliable as having the allegation, even if we take it at face value.
O.
-
If it exists, because any god would know that the evidence available doesn't support the contention 'god', and that people shouldn't be punished for reasoning.
So, just to repeat what you are saying, God should have the right to override an individual human being's choices made during their lifetime?
And yet I've come across too many 'fire and brimstone' preachers, at various times...
So have I, but if you look at the contexts of the passages (and more often, verses) that they use as the basis of their sermons, they have nothing to do with 'fire and brimstone'. In fact, I understand from some Church history texts I read that the 'fire and brimstone' sermon didn't become common until after Dante's Divine Comedy' became popular.
This idea that you override choice is the mistake.
All you god would have to do to not look like a maniac, is to NOT punish people that did not believe in him.
Why does he need to?
Then peoples choice need no be compromised, and at the moment of death she could jump out and say "Fooled ya, grab a drink of your choice and come on in, we are just having a welcoming party for you".
-
So do you admit that you have not met the burden of sufficient proof then?
No; I am saying that those who treat the documentary evidence as suspicious have not yet met the burden of proof to show that that suspicion is valid. The fact that, as NS says in his subsequent post, that "History as a study is methodologically naturalistic", misses the point. This was not history at the time of the death and resurrection of Christ, yet no-one was ablee to produce evidence at the time that would disprove it. In view of the reason why the Jewish leaders had Jesus put to death - his claiming to be God (aka blasphemy) - it would have been in their interests to show that the resurrection hadn't occurred if only to show that they hadn't made a mistake. Did they manage to do so? Has anyone ever managed to do so?
-
So, just to repeat what you are saying, God should have the right to override an individual human being's choices made during their lifetime?
No, I'm saying that it would be more in keeping with the claim of a loving god if there were a chance at accepting the offer once all the information is available. To condemn people for not believing an incredible story with insufficient evidence is cruel.
So have I, but if you look at the contexts of the passages (and more often, verses) that they use as the basis of their sermons, they have nothing to do with 'fire and brimstone'. In fact, I understand from some Church history texts I read that the 'fire and brimstone' sermon didn't become common until after Dante's Divine Comedy' became popular.
Apologies, I think we're meaning different things with 'fire and brimstone'. I didn't intend to imply the loud, bombastic delivery, but rather the eternal fires content of the sermons.
Dante's Divine Comedy was written in the 1300's, and shaped Western Christian culture from the early 1400s - that's a long time for you to dismiss it as a passing fad. Christianity, at the end of the day, is that which is done by Christians - you might disagree with it, but it is what it is.
O.
-
So do you admit that you have not met the burden of sufficient proof then?
No; I am saying that those who treat the documentary evidence as suspicious have not yet met the burden of proof to show that that suspicion is valid. The fact that, as NS says in his subsequent post, that "History as a study is methodologically naturalistic", misses the point. This was not history at the time of the death and resurrection of Christ, yet no-one was ablee to produce evidence at the time that would disprove it. In view of the reason why the Jewish leaders had Jesus put to death - his claiming to be God (aka blasphemy) - it would have been in their interests to show that the resurrection hadn't occurred if only to show that they hadn't made a mistake. Did they manage to do so? Has anyone ever managed to do so?
We do not need to disprove it, YOU have to prove it.
Simply relying on some document to be sufficient evidence for a miracle is stupid.
Do you accept the documented miracles of any other religion?
Do you accept the witness testimony (many and varied) for alien abductions?
If not, have you proved that they did not happen?
-
As has been said on numerous occasions, there is documentary evidence to this effect.
There's documentary evidence for almost countless things that you disbelieve. I assume (but don't know for sure) that you disbelieve that the birth of the Buddha was attended by a rain of flowers from the sky, or that Mohammed rode to heaven on a horse. Why is your documentary evidence the exception?
That you regard this with suspicion is perfectly understandable and normal. People have been treating it with suspicion since the day it happened - but no-one has ever produced solid evidence to support that suspicion.
You really just cannot get past the negative proof fallacy, can you?
All the evidence produced has been circumstantial - like the idea that he must have been purely human, because most of us have only ever met 'purely human' beings.
Assertions require proof to be substantiated. You have none.
-
No; I am saying that those who treat the documentary evidence as suspicious have not yet met the burden of proof to show that that suspicion is valid.
Skepticism is the default position - it doesn't need to be justified. You make the claim, and until you've offered sufficient evidence to support it it remains unproven.
This was not history at the time of the death and resurrection of Christ, yet no-one was ablee to produce evidence at the time that would disprove it.
So far as we can tell no-one was making the allegation at the time. Certainly none of the authorities at the time recorded it as such. It's only decades later that we have any evidence of anyone making the claims.
O.
-
All you god would have to do to not look like a maniac, is to NOT punish people that did not believe in him.
Who says he is punishing them? It seems to me that it is those who read the Bible in extremely non-literalistic ways (and yes, there are a handful of 'Christians' who do this - eg Fred Phelps; followers of the Prosperity Gospel) who beieve that God punishes people when he allows them to face the consequences of their own choices. I use the term 'non-literal' in the sense that they don't take the Bible's genre-makeup into account when reading it.
Then peoples choice need no be compromised, and at the moment of death she could jump out and say "Fooled ya, grab a drink of your choice and come on in, we are just having a welcoming party for you".
So, you want to be able to live your earthly life without a belief in God, but then to be able to live as if you had believed in God for the rest of eternity? That smacks of hypocrisy.
-
All you god would have to do to not look like a maniac, is to NOT punish people that did not believe in him.
Who says he is punishing them? It seems to me that it is those who read the Bible in extremely non-literalistic ways (and yes, there are a handful of 'Christians' who do this - eg Fred Phelps; followers of the Prosperity Gospel) who beieve that God punishes people when he allows them to face the consequences of their own choices.
Then peoples choice need no be compromised, and at the moment of death she could jump out and say "Fooled ya, grab a drink of your choice and come on in, we are just having a welcoming party for you".
So, you want to be able to live your earthly life without a belief in God, but then to be able to live as if you had believed in God for the rest of eternity? That smacks of hypocrisy.
It is not hypocrisy, it just shows that your god is NOT all loving.
I do not believe for any other reason than the fact that I find that the claimants for a god, have not met their burden of proof. I remain in the DEFAULT position of not believing.
Your god if it exists would understand that rational people cannot accept irrational claims for a god.
-
So, you want to be able to live your earthly life without a belief in God, but then to be able to live as if you had believed in God for the rest of eternity? That smacks of hypocrisy.
No, I live my earthly - only, it seems - life on the tenet that if you show me sufficient evidence to support your claim I'll accept it.
If I were to meet god in an afterlife I'd previously not seen evidence for I'd; a) be stunned, b) revise my opinion based on the new evidence.
That's not hypocrisy, that's entirely consistent. I'm not sure I'd have the wherewithal to go all out Stephen Fry* during the meeting, but that might come at some point of course.
O.
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-suvkwNYSQo
-
So far as we can tell no-one was making the allegation at the time. Certainly none of the authorities at the time recorded it as such. It's only decades later that we have any evidence of anyone making the claims.
The events of Acts 1 and 2 took place 'decades later'? Do you have any evidence for this claim?
-
So do you admit that you have not met the burden of sufficient proof then?
No; I am saying that those who treat the documentary evidence as suspicious have not yet met the burden of proof to show that that suspicion is valid.
The possibility of mistake or lies when it comes to anecdotal reports is always a valid suspicion, and especially so where there are risks of biased reporting and propaganda by supporters or detractors of whatever the issue is.The burden of proof is on those supporting the claim to explain how they have addressed these risks
The fact that, as NS says in his subsequent post, that "History as a study is methodologically naturalistic", misses the point.
NS is quite correct though, no matter how you try to wriggle out of accepting this.
This was not history at the time of the death and resurrection of Christ, yet no-one was ablee to produce evidence at the time that would disprove it. In view of the reason why the Jewish leaders had Jesus put to death - his claiming to be God (aka blasphemy) - it would have been in their interests to show that the resurrection hadn't occurred if only to show that they hadn't made a mistake. Did they manage to do so? Has anyone ever managed to do so?
As has been noted before - the resurrection is a post-hoc addition so that the authorities 'on the day', and in the days and weeks thereafter, were probably unaware of any need to 'do' anything beyond conducting a routine execution.
-
So far as we can tell no-one was making the allegation at the time. Certainly none of the authorities at the time recorded it as such. It's only decades later that we have any evidence of anyone making the claims.
The events of Acts 1 and 2 took place 'decades later'? Do you have any evidence for this claim?
No, the documentation of the claims in the New Testament took place, at best, decades later. They are only a weak claim that the events of Acts 1 and 2 took place at all.
O.
-
No, the documentation of the claims in the New Testament took place, at best, decades later. They are only a weak claim that the events of Acts 1 and 2 took place at all.
Wrong, the written documentation of the claims in the New Testament took place as early as 44AD, according to the generally accepted dating of Galations (between 44 and 55AD). However, oral documentation had started long before that with events recorded in Acts occurring as little as weeks after the events. Peter's sermon - recorded in Acts 2 - is a good example.
If you insist on only allowing written documentation you will need to disallow most such documentation as the vast majority of historical documentation is 'after the event', only recording the oral documentation of the time.
-
So do you admit that you have not met the burden of sufficient proof then?
No; I am saying that those who treat the documentary evidence as suspicious have not yet met the burden of proof to show that that suspicion is valid. The fact that, as NS says in his subsequent post, that "History as a study is methodologically naturalistic", misses the point. This was not history at the time of the death and resurrection of Christ, yet no-one was ablee to produce evidence at the time that would disprove it. In view of the reason why the Jewish leaders had Jesus put to death - his claiming to be God (aka blasphemy) - it would have been in their interests to show that the resurrection hadn't occurred if only to show that they hadn't made a mistake. Did they manage to do so? Has anyone ever managed to do so?
So that would be a no, then. Yet again you cite evidence but it isn't what is used in the study of history, which means that until you provide a methodlogy, the use of the term evidence is entirely specious.
-
Wrong, the written documentation of the claims in the New Testament took place as early as 44AD, according to the generally accepted dating of Galations (between 44 and 55AD). However, oral documentation had started long before that with events recorded in Acts occurring as little as weeks after the events. Peter's sermon - recorded in Acts 2 - is a good example.
Earliest estimates of any of the works are Galatians or Thessalonians, typically presumed to be 60 onwards, but with some claims as early as 51 (Thess.) or 49 (Gal). First external verification is of 10 of the works listed in a letter dated to 95.
Given the alleged death of Christ in around 33/34, that's still a decade and a half later.
If you insist on only allowing written documentation you will need to disallow most such documentation as the vast majority of historical documentation is 'after the event', only recording the oral documentation of the time.
Typically, though, only the events with multiple accounts - preferably from sources with varying affiliations - are considered to be reliable.
O.
-
As has been noted before - the resurrection is a post-hoc addition so that the authorities 'on the day', and in the days and weeks thereafter, were probably unaware of any need to 'do' anything beyond conducting a routine execution.
Just to add to this, the non Biblical sources used for the existence of JC such As Tacitus, Pliny, Suetonius and Josephus do not give any indication of any thoughts on this or even a high level understanding of the claim.
-
Typically, though, only the events with multiple accounts - preferably from sources with varying affiliations - are considered to be reliable.
O.
And none are considered reliable in terms of superbnatural claims because of history being methodologically naturalistic
-
Typically, though, only the events with multiple accounts - preferably from sources with varying affiliations - are considered to be reliable.
O.
And none are considered reliable in terms of superbnatural claims because of history being methodologically naturalistic
Arguably - multiple historic accounts of, say, the parting of the Red Sea would give credence to the account.
Then you'd need to find an explanation, and it's at that point where someone wanting to posit a supernatural cause would have to justify it. The events themselves might be presumed naturalistic, but their occurence doesn't require an explanation in itself, just sufficient evidence to think that they genuinely happened.
That said, the implication of such a freakishly inconceivable event does put an unusual burden of evidence on the claimant.
O.
-
Typically, though, only the events with multiple accounts - preferably from sources with varying affiliations - are considered to be reliable.
O.
And none are considered reliable in terms of superbnatural claims because of history being methodologically naturalistic
Arguably - multiple historic accounts of, say, the parting of the Red Sea would give credence to the account.
Then you'd need to find an explanation, and it's at that point where someone wanting to posit a supernatural cause would have to justify it. The events themselves might be presumed naturalistic, but their occurence doesn't require an explanation in itself, just sufficient evidence to think that they genuinely happened.
That said, the implication of such a freakishly inconceivable event does put an unusual burden of evidence on the claimant.
O.
It doesn't even need to be a freakishly inconceivable event either. It can be as mundane as you want. Perhaps the supernatural caused me to put my pants on this morning and stopped me peeing on the toilet seat. Under a naturalistic approach, they're just come day, go day events, but under a supernaturalistic outlook how do you even begin to recognise events like these as mundane? Looking through supernatural specs makes a nonsense of a naturalistic outlook.
-
It doesn't even need to be a freakishly inconceivable event either. It can be as mundane as you want. Perhaps the supernatural caused me to put my pants on this morning and stopped me peeing on the toilet seat. Under a naturalistic approach, they're just come day, go day events, but under a supernaturalistic outlook how do you even begin to recognise events like these as mundane? Looking through supernatural specs makes a nonsense of a naturalistic outlook.
And dissolves any known method
-
Perhaps the supernatural caused me to put my pants on this morning and stopped me peeing on the toilet seat.
I am reading this in not a good way! :o
-
Perhaps the supernatural caused me to put my pants on this morning and stopped me peeing on the toilet seat.
I am reading this in not a good way! :o
I would not like to be using any of this in my defence in a court!
The supernatural made me do it your honour.
-
Perhaps the supernatural caused me to put my pants on this morning and stopped me peeing on the toilet seat.
I am reading this in not a good way! :o
;D Perhaps I should've ordered it the other way around.
-
Some historical accounts exist around this woman.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Winifred
An apparently real person, we know her lineage, where she lived, and the fact she was decapitated before her uncle restored her head and she came back to life. It's well documented.
-
I do believe our Rhi is having a small but sly dig-ette :D
-
Some historical accounts exist around this woman.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Winifred
An apparently real person, we know her lineage, where she lived, and the fact she was decapitated before her uncle restored her head and she came back to life. It's well documented.
First impressions - a lady who quite likely was attacked and had her neck cut was left with a scar. Over time the story was exaggerated more and more.
Seems far more likely an explanation than the reattachment of a severed appendage in the absence of any complex surgery, let alone a head.
O.
-
I do believe our Rhi is having a small but sly dig-ette :D
I don't mean to be unkind. I just really don't see why one set of documented myths around a vaguely historical person are taken as fact when around another they are dismissed as legend.
-
No; I am saying that those who treat the documentary evidence as suspicious have not yet met the burden of proof to show that that suspicion is valid.
Skepticism is the default position - it doesn't need to be justified. You make the claim, and until you've offered sufficient evidence to support it it remains unproven.
But that's not what's going on is it science scepticism is being on these boards mistaken for science, philosophical naturalism, being right, excused the exercise of proper historical research.
-
I do believe our Rhi is having a small but sly dig-ette :D
I don't mean to be unkind. I just really don't see why one set of documented myths around a vaguely historical person are taken as fact when around another they are dismissed as legend.
It's not so much that they're completely one or the other.
It seems likely that St Winifred is based on a real person. It seems likely that the Christian idea of Jesus is based on a real person.
It seems likely that St Winifred lived in the time specified and was a nun for a reasonable period. It seems likely that she suffered some sort of neck injury. The legendary part is the bit about being decapitated and having the head reattached, probably an exaggeration.
It's entirely possible that Jesus was crucified - it wasn't uncommon at the time, unfortunately - but the idea that he was resurrected is one of the legendary bits. The problem with the Jesus myth is that so many legends have been crammed into the narrative with so little corroboration that it all becomes highly suspect.
O.
-
I do believe our Rhi is having a small but sly dig-ette :D
Rhiannon is prepared to jeapordise the foundations of her own faith just to get the approval of a handful of antitheists, perhaps.
-
But that's not what's going on is it science scepticism is being on these boards mistaken for science, philosophical naturalism, being right, excused the exercise of proper historical research.
Those might be the right words but you've gone all Eric Morecombe on them.
-
But that's not what's going on is it science scepticism is being on these boards mistaken for science, philosophical naturalism, being right, excused the exercise of proper historical research.
I'd say that skepticism - scientific or otherwise - is being conflated as bias sometimes. Hope's repeated point that, ultimately, believers don't reason their way to belief, it's a matter of faith is worth bearing in mind.
Reason does not have a path to 'therefore god'.
The fetishisation of 'Philosophical Naturalism' is purely your own doing, if you stopped throwing out around like some sort of faith-based panacea against logic things would probably proceed better.
Skepticism is the default position, the onus is on the claimant to prove their claim to a satisfactory degree. If you want people to accept extraordinary claims you either need: a lot more naturalistic evidence than you currently have offered; a lot better naturalistic evidence than you currently have offered; a different methodology.
O.
-
I do believe our Rhi is having a small but sly dig-ette :D
Rhiannon is prepared to jeapordise the foundations of her own faith just to get the approval of a handful of antitheists, perhaps.
How?
-
I do believe our Rhi is having a small but sly dig-ette :D
I don't mean to be unkind. I just really don't see why one set of documented myths around a vaguely historical person are taken as fact when around another they are dismissed as legend.
It's not so much that they're completely one or the other.
It seems likely that St Winifred is based on a real person. It seems likely that the Christian idea of Jesus is based on a real person.
It seems likely that St Winifred lived in the time specified and was a nun for a reasonable period. It seems likely that she suffered some sort of neck injury. The legendary part is the bit about being decapitated and having the head reattached, probably an exaggeration.
It's entirely possible that Jesus was crucified - it wasn't uncommon at the time, unfortunately - but the idea that he was resurrected is one of the legendary bits. The problem with the Jesus myth is that so many legends have been crammed into the narrative with so little corroboration that it all becomes highly suspect.
O.
Of course, this is my point.
-
Some historical accounts exist around this woman.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Winifred
An apparently real person, we know her lineage, where she lived, and the fact she was decapitated before her uncle restored her head and she came back to life. It's well documented.
First impressions - a lady who quite likely was attacked and had her neck cut was left with a scar. Over time the story was exaggerated more and more.
Seems far more likely an explanation than the reattachment of a severed appendage in the absence of any complex surgery, let alone a head.
O.
Well restoration of a head is quite rare i'll give you that. How well documented is well documented?
-
I do believe our Rhi is having a small but sly dig-ette :D
Rhiannon is prepared to jeapordise the foundations of her own faith just to get the approval of a handful of antitheists, perhaps.
No, I don't buy that for one femtosecond.
Rhiannon doesn't need to seek anybody's approval on this forum - she's simply stating her opinion and (in #252) making a very valid point (which I'm confident Hope won't touch, given that he's the repeat offender for boring on about documentary evidence. Well, guess what: there's documentary evidence for innumerable things that Hope doesn't believe, so we need to be told why his documentary evidence is sounder and more credible than the other documentary evidence. We shall see ...).
I'm not at all surprised that you are incapable of telling the latter from the former, however.
-
I do believe our Rhi is having a small but sly dig-ette :D
Rhiannon is prepared to jeapordise the foundations of her own faith just to get the approval of a handful of antitheists, perhaps.
No, I don't buy that for one femtosecond.
Rhiannon doesn't need to seek anybody's approval on this forum - she's simply stating her opinion and (in #252) making a very valid point.
I'm not at all surprised that you are incapable of telling the latter from the former, however.
I have noted other pagans prepared to join antitheists flash mobs before. You will note the word perhaps. If Rhiannon is just here to promote her own antichristianity and it just happens to coincide with yours I'm prepared to accept that account.
I just wonder what Rhi has against Legend bearing in mind her own supernatural beliefs must be based on less than historical claim and in fact less than legend.
If she is going to equate the story of St Winifred with that of the resurrection she should be providing us with sources such that her assertions can be weighed up.
I've given reasons why I feel Outrider's sweeping conclusion ''well it's all legend ain't it'' is inadequate.
-
I do believe our Rhi is having a small but sly dig-ette :D
Rhiannon is prepared to jeapordise the foundations of her own faith just to get the approval of a handful of antitheists, perhaps.
What a daft statement! ::)
-
I've given reasons why I feel Outrider's sweeping conclusion ''well it's all legend ain't it'' is inadequate.
I haven't seen any such reasons. All I've seen is you bore on about philosophical naturalism yet again.
-
Whoa, Floo and Shaker......could be the beginnings of an antitheistic flash mob.
Can't get any literature citing St Winifred before 1836.
Apparently Multiple legends around her ONE of which has the head business.
-
Whoa, Floo and Shaker......could be the beginnings of an antitheistic flash mob.
Can't get any literature citing St Winifred before 1836.
Apparently Multiple legends around her ONE of which has the head business.
I believe there was once a legend about someone leaving the forum if I didn't 'resign'.
-
Whoa, Floo and Shaker......could be the beginnings of an antitheistic flash mob.
Can't get any literature citing St Winifred before 1836.
Apparently Multiple legends around her ONE of which has the head business.
I believe there was once a legend about someone leaving the forum if I didn't 'resign'.
Still here?
-
Yep, and staying
-
I do believe our Rhi is having a small but sly dig-ette :D
Rhiannon is prepared to jeapordise the foundations of her own faith just to get the approval of a handful of antitheists, perhaps.
No, I don't buy that for one femtosecond.
Rhiannon doesn't need to seek anybody's approval on this forum - she's simply stating her opinion and (in #252) making a very valid point (which I'm confident Hope won't touch, given that he's the repeat offender for boring on about documentary evidence. Well, guess what: there's documentary evidence for innumerable things that Hope doesn't believe, so we need to be told why his documentary evidence is sounder and more credible than the other documentary evidence. We shall see ...).
I'm not at all surprised that you are incapable of telling the latter from the former, however.
I get the impression with Hope, that his legendary but elusive evidence that he thinks would rally support for his cause, would rather kill himself a couple of times than admit that he doesn't have any of the said evidence.
ippy
-
I do believe our Rhi is having a small but sly dig-ette :D
Rhiannon is prepared to jeapordise the foundations of her own faith just to get the approval of a handful of antitheists, perhaps.
No, I don't buy that for one femtosecond.
Rhiannon doesn't need to seek anybody's approval on this forum - she's simply stating her opinion and (in #252) making a very valid point (which I'm confident Hope won't touch, given that he's the repeat offender for boring on about documentary evidence. Well, guess what: there's documentary evidence for innumerable things that Hope doesn't believe, so we need to be told why his documentary evidence is sounder and more credible than the other documentary evidence. We shall see ...).
I'm not at all surprised that you are incapable of telling the latter from the former, however.
I get the impression with Hope, that his legendary but elusive evidence that he thinks would rally support for his cause, would rather kill himself a couple of times than admit that he doesn't have any of the said evidence.
ippy
Ippy's here too, looks like we've got ourselves an antitheist CONVOY......CONVOY....Calling JeremyP...Got your ears on, good buddy?
-
I do believe our Rhi is having a small but sly dig-ette :D
Rhiannon is prepared to jeapordise the foundations of her own faith just to get the approval of a handful of antitheists, perhaps.
No, I don't buy that for one femtosecond.
Rhiannon doesn't need to seek anybody's approval on this forum - she's simply stating her opinion and (in #252) making a very valid point (which I'm confident Hope won't touch, given that he's the repeat offender for boring on about documentary evidence. Well, guess what: there's documentary evidence for innumerable things that Hope doesn't believe, so we need to be told why his documentary evidence is sounder and more credible than the other documentary evidence. We shall see ...).
I'm not at all surprised that you are incapable of telling the latter from the former, however.
I get the impression with Hope, that his legendary but elusive evidence that he thinks would rally support for his cause, would rather kill himself a couple of times than admit that he doesn't have any of the said evidence.
ippy
Ippy's here too, looks like we've got ourselves an antitheist CONVOY......CONVOY....Calling JeremyP...Got your ears on, good buddy?
I wondered if it might be a good idea to express yourself if you were to use a more simple form of every day English it might allow you more time for to discuss your actual ideas rather than trying to explain words you are using that are just a touch to forward of what it is you're trying to say.
ippy
-
I wondered if it might be a good idea to express yourself if you were to use a more simple form of every day English it might allow you more time for to discuss your actual ideas rather than trying to explain words you are using that are just a touch to forward of what it is you're trying to say.
ippy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convoy_(song)
-
I do believe our Rhi is having a small but sly dig-ette :D
Rhiannon is prepared to jeapordise the foundations of her own faith just to get the approval of a handful of antitheists, perhaps.
No, I don't buy that for one femtosecond.
Rhiannon doesn't need to seek anybody's approval on this forum - she's simply stating her opinion and (in #252) making a very valid point.
I'm not at all surprised that you are incapable of telling the latter from the former, however.
I have noted other pagans prepared to join antitheists flash mobs before. You will note the word perhaps. If Rhiannon is just here to promote her own antichristianity and it just happens to coincide with yours I'm prepared to accept that account.
I just wonder what Rhi has against Legend bearing in mind her own supernatural beliefs must be based on less than historical claim and in fact less than legend.
If she is going to equate the story of St Winifred with that of the resurrection she should be providing us with sources such that her assertions can be weighed up.
I've given reasons why I feel Outrider's sweeping conclusion ''well it's all legend ain't it'' is inadequate.
1. What are 'the foundations of my faith'?
2. What makes you think I am anti-Christian and/or anti theist and/or feel the need to impress anyone?
-
I wondered if it might be a good idea to express yourself if you were to use a more simple form of every day English it might allow you more time for to discuss your actual ideas rather than trying to explain words you are using that are just a touch to forward of what it is you're trying to say.
ippy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convoy_(song)
Yes that's exactly as I thought he meant, all I was trying to do was, in one of my more kindly moments, possibly help Big W out of the wordy trap he keeps on putting himself into.
I know my post wasn't exactly an answer to his post but thanks anyway for your concern N S.
ippy
-
I do believe our Rhi is having a small but sly dig-ette :D
Rhiannon is prepared to jeapordise the foundations of her own faith just to get the approval of a handful of antitheists, perhaps.
No, I don't buy that for one femtosecond.
Rhiannon doesn't need to seek anybody's approval on this forum - she's simply stating her opinion and (in #252) making a very valid point.
I'm not at all surprised that you are incapable of telling the latter from the former, however.
I have noted other pagans prepared to join antitheists flash mobs before. You will note the word perhaps. If Rhiannon is just here to promote her own antichristianity and it just happens to coincide with yours I'm prepared to accept that account.
I just wonder what Rhi has against Legend bearing in mind her own supernatural beliefs must be based on less than historical claim and in fact less than legend.
If she is going to equate the story of St Winifred with that of the resurrection she should be providing us with sources such that her assertions can be weighed up.
I've given reasons why I feel Outrider's sweeping conclusion ''well it's all legend ain't it'' is inadequate.
1. What are 'the foundations of my faith'?
2. What makes you think I am anti-Christian and/or anti theist and/or feel the need to impress anyone?
You not talking to me any more, Vlad?
-
I do believe our Rhi is having a small but sly dig-ette :D
Rhiannon is prepared to jeapordise the foundations of her own faith just to get the approval of a handful of antitheists, perhaps.
No, I don't buy that for one femtosecond.
Rhiannon doesn't need to seek anybody's approval on this forum - she's simply stating her opinion and (in #252) making a very valid point.
I'm not at all surprised that you are incapable of telling the latter from the former, however.
I have noted other pagans prepared to join antitheists flash mobs before. You will note the word perhaps. If Rhiannon is just here to promote her own antichristianity and it just happens to coincide with yours I'm prepared to accept that account.
I just wonder what Rhi has against Legend bearing in mind her own supernatural beliefs must be based on less than historical claim and in fact less than legend.
If she is going to equate the story of St Winifred with that of the resurrection she should be providing us with sources such that her assertions can be weighed up.
I've given reasons why I feel Outrider's sweeping conclusion ''well it's all legend ain't it'' is inadequate.
1. What are 'the foundations of my faith'?
2. What makes you think I am anti-Christian and/or anti theist and/or feel the need to impress anyone?
You not talking to me any more, Vlad?
Firstly I found some of your statements pointedly antichristian.
Secondly, I take it your faith is one of the theistics. That there are stories,explanations and narratives to it that do not back the standard which philosophical naturalist one. You seem to be taking their dismiss first....and hope there is no challenge to that dismissal attitude.
But then hey, what do I actually know about your religion with it's hidden mysteries and secret rites.
-
If you point out which ones I will explain why I made them - but I am neither anti Christian nor anti theist and you will find plenty of posts from me defending both. I 'pointedly' dislike the doctrine of penal substitution and the notion that we cannot be decent human beings without it.
I'm a kind of theist which in my case means I experience something I regard as my gods, also encompassing the physical world. Around these are myths and legends that have things for me to think about and understand, if I want to. I have no proof and need none because it doesn't matter to me if this is down to a quirk in my brain or whatever. And I have no interest in trying to prove any of this to you or anyone else, because no proof exists, it's exhausting trying to prove the unprovable, and it'd be plain rude to try to make my truth somebody else's. I don't need others to believe in order to feel validated.
The only reason I won't be inviting to to any of my 'rites' is because generally I do them at home, indoors or in the garden. This is partly because it isn't safe here to be out as a pagan without getting harassment, but also because it's more convenient as I have children. But I'm happy to describe them. The last one involved me planting a tree as a gift to the new owners of my house, when they finally show up. I also burned a bit of incense.
-
Reason does not have a path to 'therefore god'.
Not sure that Christian faith has a path to 'therefore god' either, O.
For most Christians I know, God is at the start of the journey, not at the end.
-
Reason and belief in God don't belong together. You can reason your way out of faith, but not into it. Faith requires experience of something as real.
-
If you point out which ones I will explain why I made them - but I am neither anti Christian nor anti theist and you will find plenty of posts from me defending both. I 'pointedly' dislike the doctrine of penal substitution and the notion that we cannot be decent human beings without it.
Penal substitution is about justice. To be against it IMHO is to want to deprive us of justice. In other words treat justice as though it were a bad thing.
Of course, it is unreasonable to think that we are or should be recipients of justice in one way and not the other (As penalty).
In that sense it is not unreasonable to suppose that God in the crucifixion takes that justice upon himself.
There are other interpretations of the cross and I don't think all of them are incompatible with each other.
I therefore don't think we should be ungrateful therefore since the way to God is now open. But hey ho we are modern consumers, given to complaining about the accommodation.
-
I therefore don't think we should be ungrateful therefore since the way to God is now open. But hey ho we are modern consumers, given to complaining about the accommodation.
Don't forget the small print Vlad: after all, they do say the devil is in the detail.
-
I therefore don't think we should be ungrateful therefore since the way to God is now open. But hey ho we are modern consumers, given to complaining about the accommodation.
Don't forget the small print Vlad: after all, they do say the devil is in the detail.
Loophole sniffing again Gordon?
-
Unconditional love includes loving God... You cannot love God whom you do not see if you do not love your brother whom you can see.
Unconditional love is given and therefore if you love God you believe what he says.
Do you unconditionally love god? So if it asked you to kill you son aka as per Abrham you'd do exactly what was demanded of you?
I thought many Muslims love Mohamed but it is on condition he was not a dick.
Not an intellectual response to my post, Jak.(not calling you thick, either.)
As there is NOTHING in the bible asking us to kill our son or daughter for that matter.
There is NOTHING to base your argument on. When you mention Abraham, there were no laws given then. But truth always existed.
Maybe you just could not understand that Abraham knew God in a different type of relationship to that of the world today. He heard God speak to him and he knew God gave him his son and made promises through him. He knew God could raise his son and that no matter what would keep the promises he made.
It is difficult with a closed mind and understanding to see the reason for the LORDs intervention. But what is clear is that Abraham NEVER killed his son. So a ''what if'' is not an option in this case. God does not want people to kill anyone by way of sacrifice to him.
This was a clear teaching that Abraham learned from the beginning.
31 Thou shalt not do so unto the Lord thy God: for every abomination to the Lord, which he hateth, have they done unto their gods; for even their sons and their daughters they have burnt in the fire to their gods.
God has clearly shown that he does NOT want us to sacrifice our children to him as others did to false gods.
Would be good if the atheists could take this on board.
-
BA
It is because if you don't hold it, the belief, you are excluded.
Therefore going to heaven excludes those who don't believe the right things.
Unconditional love excludes no one.
Unconditional love includes loving God... You cannot love God whom you do not see if you do not love your brother whom you can see.
Unconditional love is given and therefore if you love God you believe what he says.
God's love is NOT NOT NOT unconditional!
It is given on the condition that you do exactly what he says or he will smite the total crap out of you!
Sassy, you don't half talk a load of shite sometimes!, No, you do it most of the time!
Unconditional love tells you the TRUTH.
Something your reply lacks because of lack of knowledge when it comes to unconditional love and truth.
Truth is there was no way back for man by his own means to God through the sins mankind committed. Because truth and justice are all part of unconditional love.
God still shows his unconditional love by paying the price for us to come back to him. All the angst in your post displayed and vented in dislike and towards me is all due to ignorance and you being unwilling to see the truth for what it is, and why justice and truth are part of unconditional love.
Say what you will about me and vent it towards me, it won't change the fact it is your lack of understanding about unconditional love from God which is at fault.
-
Unconditional love includes loving God... You cannot love God whom you do not see if you do not love your brother whom you can see.
Unconditional love is given and therefore if you love God you believe what he says.
Do you unconditionally love god? So if it asked you to kill you son aka as per Abrham you'd do exactly what was demanded of you?
I thought many Muslims love Mohamed but it is on condition he was not a dick.
Not an intellectual response to my post, Jak.(not calling you thick, either.)
As there is NOTHING in the bible asking us to kill our son or daughter for that matter.
There is NOTHING to base your argument on. When you mention Abraham, there were no laws given then. But truth always existed.
Maybe you just could not understand that Abraham knew God in a different type of relationship to that of the world today. He heard God speak to him and he knew God gave him his son and made promises through him. He knew God could raise his son and that no matter what would keep the promises he made.
It is difficult with a closed mind and understanding to see the reason for the LORDs intervention. But what is clear is that Abraham NEVER killed his son. So a ''what if'' is not an option in this case. God does not want people to kill anyone by way of sacrifice to him.
This was a clear teaching that Abraham learned from the beginning.
31 Thou shalt not do so unto the Lord thy God: for every abomination to the Lord, which he hateth, have they done unto their gods; for even their sons and their daughters they have burnt in the fire to their gods.
God has clearly shown that he does NOT want us to sacrifice our children to him as others did to false gods.
Would be good if the atheists could take this on board.
Your posts don't require an intellectual response Sass, anymore than a child's fairy tale does! ;D
-
I therefore don't think we should be ungrateful therefore since the way to God is now open. But hey ho we are modern consumers, given to complaining about the accommodation.
Don't forget the small print Vlad: after all, they do say the devil is in the detail.
Loophole sniffing again Gordon?
Nope - looks a very dodgy proposition to me, so I decided not to get involved: but don't let that stop you.
(p.s. I've got this bridge in New York for sale - seriously - you interested?)
-
Don't forget the small print Vlad: after all, they do say the devil is in the detail.
And the small print is what? Take it or leave it?
-
Don't forget the small print Vlad: after all, they do say the devil is in the detail.
And the small print is what? Take it or leave it?
Nope - the seemingly made up unbelievable bits.
-
You pretending to be a bit of Jesus doesn't make hm alive.
But that wasn't the point to which I was responding, jeremy - as you well know. You asked why he doesn't show himself - to which I responded that he does, through Christians.
If he's alive, why doesn't he go on The One Show?
Again, how many times have we seen Christians on The One Show talking about the work that God is doing in this world?
You seem to miss the point that prior to Jesus' death and resurrection, animal (penal substitutionary atonement) sacrifices had to made at least once a year for the Jews, Hindus and other faiths. Jesus' death was meant to be a once for all event, thus making PSA unnecessary. Clearly, there remain those who do not believe that PSA has been made unnecessary, and continue to practise it; but that doesn't meant that it is still needed.
-
Nope - the seemingly made up unbelievable bits.
I notice that you hedge your bets by the use of 'seemingly'. I seem to remember very similar phraseology was used by the Test Match Special commentators at about 11.30am on the first day of the recent 4th Ashes Test at Trent Bridge.
-
I therefore don't think we should be ungrateful therefore since the way to God is now open. But hey ho we are modern consumers, given to complaining about the accommodation.
Don't forget the small print Vlad: after all, they do say the devil is in the detail.
Loophole sniffing again Gordon?
Nope - looks a very dodgy proposition to me, so I decided not to get involved: but don't let that stop you.
(p.s. I've got this bridge in New York for sale - seriously - you interested?)
Sorry Gord, I don't usually buy stuff from people who have sloppy or literally dodgy/dodging methodology....or people who see nativity plays as a great social danger...and you seem to fit both categories.....
-
Nope - the seemingly made up unbelievable bits.
I notice that you hedge your bets by the use of 'seemingly'. I seem to remember very similar phraseology was used by the Test Match Special commentators at about 11.30am on the first day of the recent 4th Ashes Test at Trent Bridge.
Hope
I am a Scot: therefore I have no idea what you are on about!
'Seemingly' because one day you guys might come up with a 'method', which is about a likely as me having even the remotest interest in mind-numbingly boring alleged sports.
-
I am a Scot: therefore I have no idea what you are on about!
Just because you are a Scot doesn't mean that you can't read newspapers or hear news reports. Nor, for that matter, does it mean that you can't play cricket. There is a fairly successful Scottish national cricket team and a Scottish Cricket Board.
'Seemingly' because one day you guys might come up with a 'method', which is about a likely as me having even the remotest interest in mind-numbingly boring alleged sports.
Interestingly enough, there seems to be no methodology to explain the events of that first hour and a bit of the 4th Test Match. As many of the reporters and commntators have said since, whilst great conditions-specific bowling and poor batting explain it in part, there seems to have been something that day that defies 'natural' explanation.
-
You pretending to be a bit of Jesus doesn't make hm alive.
But that wasn't the point to which I was responding, jeremy - as you well know. You asked why he doesn't show himself - to which I responded that he does, through Christians.
If he's alive, why doesn't he go on The One Show?
Again, how many times have we seen Christians on The One Show talking about the work that God is doing in this world?
You seem to miss the point that prior to Jesus' death and resurrection, animal (penal substitutionary atonement) sacrifices had to made at least once a year for the Jews, Hindus and other faiths. Jesus' death was meant to be a once for all event, thus making PSA unnecessary. Clearly, there remain those who do not believe that PSA has been made unnecessary, and continue to practise it; but that doesn't meant that it is still needed.
That seems odd to me as that same God created a commandment which says 'Thou shalt not kill' and then sacrifices his own son. Whereas he could have amended the commandment to include 'neither shalt thou sacrifice animals nor humans to appease me, for I am a God of unconditional love and do not require it.
-
Nope - the seemingly made up unbelievable bits.
I notice that you hedge your bets by the use of 'seemingly'. I seem to remember very similar phraseology was used by the Test Match Special commentators at about 11.30am on the first day of the recent 4th Ashes Test at Trent Bridge.
Hope
I am a Scot: therefore I have no idea what you are on about!
'Seemingly' because one day you guys might come up with a 'method', which is about a likely as me having even the remotest interest in mind-numbingly boring alleged sports.
Oh No, Antitheists seem to be into the 'method' thing at the moment.
Well I suppose they need a 'Big Gun' argument like the one non naturalists have.
I've only seen it used recently. I think it was Nearly sane who came up with it and then all the monkeys in the jungle started whooping.
When you examine it though it seems like the method and somehow the invocation of 'The method' in this way circumvents the situation where 'The method' i.e. science does not support 'The philosophy'. It doesn't circumvent it.
Philosophically speaking the elimination of God is arbitrary within philosophical naturalism. Secondly if there is more than the 'natural' i.e. more than the physical or material then there is no guarantee that 'the method' is not in some way applicable.
For the person who gave us 'the method/methodology' God is somehow invalid because he is an uncaused cause. That need not be a problem in an inclusive cosmos.
That the universe might be it's own uncaused cause points rather to an inclusive cosmos rather than the exclusive one of philosophical naturalism.
However, let me repeat...any talk of a method still does not support any argument that philosophical naturalism is more likely or as good as proven.
-
I am a Scot: therefore I have no idea what you are on about!
Just because you are a Scot doesn't mean that you can't read newspapers or hear news reports. Nor, for that matter, does it mean that you can't play cricket. There is a fairly successful Scottish national cricket team and a Scottish Cricket Board.
'Seemingly' because one day you guys might come up with a 'method', which is about a likely as me having even the remotest interest in mind-numbingly boring alleged sports.
Interestingly enough, there seems to be no methodology to explain the events of that first hour and a bit of the 4th Test Match. As many of the reporters and commntators have said since, whilst great conditions-specific bowling and poor batting explain it in part, there seems to have been something that day that defies 'natural' explanation.
I'd say that anyone would be remotely interested in cricket defies any form of explanation.
-
Polkingehorne on 'The method'
Theology lacks recourse to repeatable experimental confirmation as in fact do most other non-scientific explorations of reality.
My Italics
-
If you point out which ones I will explain why I made them - but I am neither anti Christian nor anti theist and you will find plenty of posts from me defending both. I 'pointedly' dislike the doctrine of penal substitution and the notion that we cannot be decent human beings without it.
Penal substitution is about justice. To be against it IMHO is to want to deprive us of justice. In other words treat justice as though it were a bad thing.
Of course, it is unreasonable to think that we are or should be recipients of justice in one way and not the other (As penalty).
In that sense it is not unreasonable to suppose that God in the crucifixion takes that justice upon himself.
There are other interpretations of the cross and I don't think all of them are incompatible with each other.
I therefore don't think we should be ungrateful therefore since the way to God is now open. But hey ho we are modern consumers, given to complaining about the accommodation.
That makes no sense. Yes, there are things that people do which are truly evil. But what you are saying is that justice means punishing ordinary human beings for our very human failings - and then you go a step further and say that somebody else pays the price instead. That's not just.
I don't know if I expect justice for others - it's nice to think that what goes around, comes around but it probably doesn't. But I don't need anybody else to judge me; I do it to myself and it'd be a whole lot more beneficial if my inner critic would shut the fuck up from time to time. The bottom line is though that if I screw up, I pay. That's justice.
-
If you point out which ones I will explain why I made them - but I am neither anti Christian nor anti theist and you will find plenty of posts from me defending both. I 'pointedly' dislike the doctrine of penal substitution and the notion that we cannot be decent human beings without it.
Penal substitution is about justice. To be against it IMHO is to want to deprive us of justice. In other words treat justice as though it were a bad thing.
Of course, it is unreasonable to think that we are or should be recipients of justice in one way and not the other (As penalty).
In that sense it is not unreasonable to suppose that God in the crucifixion takes that justice upon himself.
There are other interpretations of the cross and I don't think all of them are incompatible with each other.
I therefore don't think we should be ungrateful therefore since the way to God is now open. But hey ho we are modern consumers, given to complaining about the accommodation.
That makes no sense. Yes, there are things that people do which are truly evil. But what you are saying is that justice means punishing ordinary human beings for our very human failings - and then you go a step further and say that somebody else pays the price instead.
That's always the price of these failings though. Failings result in suffering. That is part of a very natural order. what we are saying is there is a God dimension to this.
God takes the penalty(The results of our failings) on himself.
As you point out you doubt there is ever justice and I agree.
Human failings is a by term for minimising the penalty our actions, words etc, can have on other people.
Thank God that he has taken the penalty on himself. Diminishing the consequences of what we do means we don't want to face the possible genie we have let out of the bottle and our inability to control consequences. God has done this for us. The consequences of continual throwing this back in his face seems to me habitual.
I also don't think you can separate the divine from Jesus since you are rewriting Christian theology to mislead into thinking God is practicing some destruction on another or making someone other than himself take your penalty. That is engineering of the moral highground, tied in with subsuming one's own part.
What say you of other theories of atonement?
-
No, I don't minimise how my own actions hurt others. But I'm not evil and I do so from my own stupidity, not because I'm a terrible person, and the only right thing to do is try to make amends to them if I can and learn from it. And I eat too much chocolate and have more stuff than I need because I'm stupid too. And if I get fat and can't stand the clutter then I'm paying.
I don't see how penal substitution does anything to change the suffering that our mistakes causes to others and ourselves.
I've always thought that reminding ourselves that it is God on the Cross somehow diminishes the suffering. You'll have heard non-believers say that hey, it wasn't that bad, he knew it was a couple of days dead and he'd be back.
I like Marcus Borg on the Crucifixion and the Resurrection, although I don't come from the same place as him. My personal belief is that Jesus was a real man who had a passion to teach his people how to lived coupled with great wisdom and courage, and who entered his ministry knowing he'd pay with his life for it. That is the willing sacrifice he made. No cosmic get-out clause afterwards. And I find him much more compelling and engaging and I pay more attention to his ideas when I strip away all the stuff the church has lain upon him and focus on Jesus the man.
-
No, I don't minimise how my own actions hurt others. But I'm not evil and I do so from my own stupidity, not because I'm a terrible person, and the only right thing to do is try to make amends to them if I can and learn from it. And I eat too much chocolate and have more stuff than I need because I'm stupid too. And if I get fat and can't stand the clutter then I'm paying.
I don't see how penal substitution does anything to change the suffering that our mistakes causes to others and ourselves.
I've always thought that reminding ourselves that it is God on the Cross somehow diminishes the suffering. You'll have heard non-believers say that hey, it wasn't that bad, he knew it was a couple of days dead and he'd be back.
I like Marcus Borg on the Crucifixion and the Resurrection, although I don't come from the same place as him. My personal belief is that Jesus was a real man who had a passion to teach his people how to lived coupled with great wisdom and courage, and who entered his ministry knowing he'd pay with his life for it. That is the willing sacrifice he made. No cosmic get-out clause afterwards. And I find him much more compelling and engaging and I pay more attention to his ideas when I strip away all the stuff the church has lain upon him and focus on Jesus the man.
You seem to be putting a high yet consistent premium on self judgment of actions and consequences.
Also you seem to be valuing theological ignorance of ideas such as kenosis and the last words of Christ on the cross.
Knowledge of those frankly makes statements like ''hey, it wasn't that bad, he knew it was a couple of days dead and he'd be back.'' look facile, flippant but above all,wrong. Talking of the facile and flippant we could include this '' And I eat too much chocolate and have more stuff than I need because I'm stupid too. And if I get fat and can't stand the clutter then I'm paying. ''
where your concerns seem only for yourself without considering the wider consequences of having more stuff.
It all smacks of trying to ''raise a laugh from the gallery'' i'm afraid
-
No, I don't minimise how my own actions hurt others. But I'm not evil and I do so from my own stupidity, not because I'm a terrible person, and the only right thing to do is try to make amends to them if I can and learn from it. And I eat too much chocolate and have more stuff than I need because I'm stupid too. And if I get fat and can't stand the clutter then I'm paying.
I don't see how penal substitution does anything to change the suffering that our mistakes causes to others and ourselves.
I've always thought that reminding ourselves that it is God on the Cross somehow diminishes the suffering. You'll have heard non-believers say that hey, it wasn't that bad, he knew it was a couple of days dead and he'd be back.
I like Marcus Borg on the Crucifixion and the Resurrection, although I don't come from the same place as him. My personal belief is that Jesus was a real man who had a passion to teach his people how to lived coupled with great wisdom and courage, and who entered his ministry knowing he'd pay with his life for it. That is the willing sacrifice he made. No cosmic get-out clause afterwards. And I find him much more compelling and engaging and I pay more attention to his ideas when I strip away all the stuff the church has lain upon him and focus on Jesus the man.
You seem to be putting a high yet consistent premium on self judgment of actions and consequences.
Also you seem to be valuing theological ignorance of ideas such as kenosis and the last words of Christ on the cross.
Knowledge of those frankly makes statements like ''hey, it wasn't that bad, he knew it was a couple of days dead and he'd be back.'' look facile, flippant but above all,wrong. Talking of the facile and flippant we could include this '' And I eat too much chocolate and have more stuff than I need because I'm stupid too. And if I get fat and can't stand the clutter then I'm paying. ''
where your concerns seem only for yourself without considering the wider consequences of having more stuff.
It all smacks of trying to ''raise a laugh from the gallery'' i'm afraid
Your posts raise a 'laugh', ::) although I suppose one should be pitying you rather than giggling at your crazy nonsense!
-
No, I don't minimise how my own actions hurt others. But I'm not evil and I do so from my own stupidity, not because I'm a terrible person, and the only right thing to do is try to make amends to them if I can and learn from it. And I eat too much chocolate and have more stuff than I need because I'm stupid too. And if I get fat and can't stand the clutter then I'm paying.
I don't see how penal substitution does anything to change the suffering that our mistakes causes to others and ourselves.
I've always thought that reminding ourselves that it is God on the Cross somehow diminishes the suffering. You'll have heard non-believers say that hey, it wasn't that bad, he knew it was a couple of days dead and he'd be back.
I like Marcus Borg on the Crucifixion and the Resurrection, although I don't come from the same place as him. My personal belief is that Jesus was a real man who had a passion to teach his people how to lived coupled with great wisdom and courage, and who entered his ministry knowing he'd pay with his life for it. That is the willing sacrifice he made. No cosmic get-out clause afterwards. And I find him much more compelling and engaging and I pay more attention to his ideas when I strip away all the stuff the church has lain upon him and focus on Jesus the man.
You seem to be putting a high yet consistent premium on self judgment of actions and consequences.
Also you seem to be valuing theological ignorance of ideas such as kenosis and the last words of Christ on the cross.
Knowledge of those frankly makes statements like ''hey, it wasn't that bad, he knew it was a couple of days dead and he'd be back.'' look facile, flippant but above all,wrong. Talking of the facile and flippant we could include this '' And I eat too much chocolate and have more stuff than I need because I'm stupid too. And if I get fat and can't stand the clutter then I'm paying. ''
where your concerns seem only for yourself without considering the wider consequences of having more stuff.
It all smacks of trying to ''raise a laugh from the gallery'' i'm afraid
Your posts raise a 'laugh', ::) although I suppose one should be pitying you rather than giggling at your crazy nonsense!
Are you claiming mental incapacity on my part here? Any expert knowledge or other evidence for your diagnosis?
-
Seriously, Vlad? You think I'm laying open my own stupidity to get a laugh? And didn't you get that I find the 'hey, it was only two days' kind of comments crass and thoughtless?
It's a fair point that my post didn't mention the impact of having stuff on others, but that doesn't mean it isn't something I think about. A lot of what I buy for my home I source second-hand, and I repair and remake things where I can, but that isn't alwàys possible, and making ethical choices can be a minefield. I try to do what I can but I know I could do better.
But you seem to be focussing very much on consumerism as the greatest sin that us 'normal' sinners commit. I'm unimpressed by the misrepresentation of others in order to score cheap points and enable the stroking of ones's own ego.
-
Seriously, Vlad? You think I'm laying open my own stupidity to get a laugh? And didn't you get that I find the 'hey, it was only two days' kind of comments crass and thoughtless?
It's a fair point that my post didn't mention the impact of having stuff on others, but that doesn't mean it isn't something I think about. A lot of what I buy for my home I source second-hand, and I repair and remake things where I can, but that isn't alwàys possible, and making ethical choices can be a minefield. I try to do what I can but I know I could do better.
But you seem to be focussing very much on consumerism as the greatest sin that us 'normal' sinners commit. I'm unimpressed by the misrepresentation of others in order to score cheap points and enable the stroking of ones's own ego.
On the contrary it is the person who minimises the impact of their actions who is salving there own ego.
An undue focus on the sins of the modern consumer may be at the other end of the spectrum which includes complete self exoneration and I take your point that even I have to watch drifting into heresy.
That the belief that we are all fallen short is taken, by those troubled by it, instead as ''You are fallen short and I am not'' has always puzzled me.
-
No, I don't minimise how my own actions hurt others. But I'm not evil and I do so from my own stupidity, not because I'm a terrible person, and the only right thing to do is try to make amends to them if I can and learn from it. And I eat too much chocolate and have more stuff than I need because I'm stupid too. And if I get fat and can't stand the clutter then I'm paying.
I don't see how penal substitution does anything to change the suffering that our mistakes causes to others and ourselves.
I've always thought that reminding ourselves that it is God on the Cross somehow diminishes the suffering. You'll have heard non-believers say that hey, it wasn't that bad, he knew it was a couple of days dead and he'd be back.
I like Marcus Borg on the Crucifixion and the Resurrection, although I don't come from the same place as him. My personal belief is that Jesus was a real man who had a passion to teach his people how to lived coupled with great wisdom and courage, and who entered his ministry knowing he'd pay with his life for it. That is the willing sacrifice he made. No cosmic get-out clause afterwards. And I find him much more compelling and engaging and I pay more attention to his ideas when I strip away all the stuff the church has lain upon him and focus on Jesus the man.
You seem to be putting a high yet consistent premium on self judgment of actions and consequences.
Also you seem to be valuing theological ignorance of ideas such as kenosis and the last words of Christ on the cross.
Knowledge of those frankly makes statements like ''hey, it wasn't that bad, he knew it was a couple of days dead and he'd be back.'' look facile, flippant but above all,wrong. Talking of the facile and flippant we could include this '' And I eat too much chocolate and have more stuff than I need because I'm stupid too. And if I get fat and can't stand the clutter then I'm paying. ''
where your concerns seem only for yourself without considering the wider consequences of having more stuff.
It all smacks of trying to ''raise a laugh from the gallery'' i'm afraid
Your posts raise a 'laugh', ::) although I suppose one should be pitying you rather than giggling at your crazy nonsense!
Are you claiming mental incapacity on my part here? Any expert knowledge or other evidence for your diagnosis?
I am saying that your posts seem to be getting crazier, but maybe that is your intention! ::)
-
Of course we are all fallible, silly creatures. But we aren't rotten as a result, because generally we are also capable of thoughtfulness, kindness, creativity, even heroism and self sacrifice - you might call these things 'loving'. And we don't need to be punished just for being human, with our crazy mix of failings and glories. Let's face it, we are so very good at punishing ourselves anyway (with a nod to Ms Christie once again).
-
Of course we are all fallible, silly creatures. But we aren't rotten as a result, because generally we are also capable of thoughtfulness, kindness, creativity, even heroism and self sacrifice - you might call these things 'loving'. And we don't need to be punished just for being human, with our crazy mix of failings and glories. Let's face it, we are so very good at punishing ourselves anyway (with a nod to Ms Christie once again).
I'm tempted to ask what Agatha Christie's ''seelly fallabeelity'' has to do with actual human rottenness and alienation or our self lenient ''punishment' of it.
perhaps we should concentrate less on punishing ourselves and seeking for a true assessment.
It's the Felicity Kendall school of Anthropology.
-
I'm tempted to ask what Agatha Christie's ''seelly fallabeelity'' has to do with actual human rottenness and alienation or our self lenient ''punishment' of it.
It's a highly welcome - and accurate - antidote to the ugly, poisonous and pernicious attitude of bog-standard Christianity as viewing all human beings as inherently flawed, faulty and damaged according to its imaginary standard of "perfection."
No idea what "alienation" refers to.
It's the Felicity Kendall school of Anthropology.
Which would be rather nice.
-
I'm tempted to ask what Agatha Christie's ''seelly fallabeelity'' has to do with actual human rottenness and alienation or our self lenient ''punishment' of it.
It's a highly welcome - and accurate - antidote to the ugly, poisonous and pernicious attitude of bog-standard Christianity as viewing all human beings as inherently flawed, faulty and damaged according to its imaginary standard of "perfection."
No idea what "alienation" refers to.
It's the Felicity Kendall school of Anthropology.
Which would be rather nice.
Yes but an Agatha Christie 'silly falibility' is not the same as human rottenness
How her sanitisation and trivialisation of murder is somehow accurate I don't know.
You're a very, very, seeelly boy.
-
Yes but an Agatha Christie 'silly falibility' is not the same as human rottenness
I don't disagree that there are a few human beings that I would describe as "rotten."
People who abuse children. People who abuse animals, for that matter. ISIS members who decapitate hostages with knives. You get the picture.
These people are and have always been in the minority. Most people are not and never have been like this. There's rather a large difference between this accurate estimation and Christianity's blanket appraisal of all humanity as tainted. That's why it's such an ugly, miserable excuse for a religion, wrong in the English language's two senses of that word.
How her sanitisation and trivialisation of murder is somehow accurate I don't know.
She didn't do so. Once again, lack of ability to comprehend what's written is your undoing
-
These people are and have always been in the minority. Most people are not and never have been like this. There's rather a large difference between this accurate estimation and Christianity's blanket appraisal of all humanity as tainted. That's why it's such an ugly, miserable excuse for a religion, wrong in the English language's two senses of that word.
So, would you say that most people have never ... lied, failed to fulfill a promise, spoken spitefully, done something that they had promised themselves, and others, that they would never do again, ... ? That is the whole point of what you like to call 'Christianity's blanket appraisal of all humanity as tainted'. No-one is perfect. Christians believ that human beings were designed to be perfect and to enjoy an untainted relationship with God. That has not worked out. The seriousness of the wrongdoing isn't the most important thing for God; its the fact that relationship is broken. Let's take a human example: 'Child' A and 'Child' B are siblings. The first time Child A goes for a drive having passed his driving test, he has an accident and kills the mother of a family of 4, the rest of whom are seriously injured ; on the same day their father discovers that Child B has stolen and sold her recently-deceased mother's vintage treadle sewing machine. From society's perspective, who committed the more serious crime? Who committed the more serious breach of trust?
-
Yes but an Agatha Christie 'silly falibility' is not the same as human rottenness
I don't disagree that there are a few human beings that I would describe as "rotten."
People who abuse children. People who abuse animals, for that matter. ISIS members who decapitate hostages with knives. You get the picture.
These people are and have always been in the minority. Most people are not and never have been like this. There's rather a large difference between this accurate estimation and Christianity's blanket appraisal of all humanity as tainted. That's why it's such an ugly, miserable excuse for a religion, wrong in the English language's two senses of that word.
How her sanitisation and trivialisation of murder is somehow accurate I don't know.
She didn't do so. Once again, lack of ability to comprehend what's written is your undoing
What a sentimental and over incensed and angry response for somebody who doesn't believe any of it.
It also assumes competence in self assessment and moral of the actions of self and others at the same time as psychological incompetence of human beings and moral subjectivity is also peddled.
I can't agree that all's right with the world or that aside from Bad people we have nothing to do with any misery whatsoever.
-
Vlad, are you trying the old 'winning an argument by mimicking in a silly voice' tactic?
It trivialises evil to say that you and I are as fallen as a child molester or serial killer.
It seems to me that all you've done is adopt a set of beliefs that still makes you feel shit about yourself, only now you get the satisfaction of thinking that everyone else is shit, too.
-
Neither Shaker nor myself have said that we believe we are perfect or don't impact on others. That's another blatant misrepresentation.
-
So, would you say that most people have never ... lied, failed to fulfill a promise, spoken spitefully, done something that they had promised themselves, and others, that they would never do again, ... ?
Of course they have. That makes them pretty bog-standard, ordinary human beings - you see the same kinds of behaviours in chimps and bonobos, our nearest evolutionary ancestors -, not factory-damaged, inherently tainted defects until and unless they claim to believe in a raft of ludicrous claims about magic SuperJew.
That is the whole point of what you like to call 'Christianity's blanket appraisal of all humanity as tainted'.
How ridiculous.
No-one is perfect.
No idea what 'perfect' is supposed to mean.
Christians believ that human beings were designed to be perfect and to enjoy an untainted relationship with God.
What colossal wank.
That has not worked out.
Did God (a) not know about this in advance, (b) know about this in advance, wanted to prevent it but was unable to, or (c) know about this in advance, wanted to prevent it, was able to prevent but chose not to?
-
It trivialises evil to say that you and I are as fallen as a child molester or serial killer.
Does it, Rhi? Imagine that, following a number of things going missing in your home, you discover that their disappearance has been the work of your child, dspite their adamant denials that they have been involved. OK, s/he hasn't murdered anyone, hasn't abused anyone - or has she? Hasn't she abused your trust and your love?
-
Neither Shaker nor myself have said that we believe we are perfect or don't impact on others. That's another blatant misrepresentation.
So, imagine how much you have impacted on the very being that created you.
-
Neither Shaker nor myself have said that we believe we are perfect or don't impact on others. That's another blatant misrepresentation.
Moreover, I haven't a clue what 'perfect' is even supposed to mean in any context, least of all with regard to human beings. What would a 'perfect' human being even look like? Hope recently said that Jesus was one; I can only assume he has a vastly different edition of the New Testament to the one I have.
-
Neither Shaker nor myself have said that we believe we are perfect or don't impact on others. That's another blatant misrepresentation.
So, imagine how much you have impacted on the very being that created you.
There were two of them, actually.
-
Neither Shaker nor myself have said that we believe we are perfect or don't impact on others. That's another blatant misrepresentation.
So, imagine how much you have impacted on the very being that created you.
If it created us, any imperfections are all down to its shoddy design!
-
It trivialises evil to say that you and I are as fallen as a child molester or serial killer.
Does it, Rhi? Imagine that, following a number of things going missing in your home, you discover that their disappearance has been the work of your child, dspite their adamant denials that they have been involved. OK, s/he hasn't murdered anyone, hasn't abused anyone - or has she? Hasn't she abused your trust and your love?
What a histrionic, melodramatic fool.
-
Vlad, are you trying the old 'winning an argument by mimicking in a silly voice' tactic?
It trivialises evil to say that you and I are as fallen as a child molester or serial killer.
It seems to me that all you've done is adopt a set of beliefs that still makes you feel shit about yourself, only now you get the satisfaction of thinking that everyone else is shit, too.
I don't know what you mean by being shit. That's your invention.
I think you are mistaking an inferiority felt with other people with our relationship with God who so loves us that he gives his only begotten son.....but even that is lost on us in our recast of it as some kind of manslaughter.
-
Some idiot Christians equate a small transgression, or something which isn't wrong like homosexuality as being as 'sinful' as murder or child sexual abuse. >:( They really need to wake up and smell the coffee!
-
Neither Shaker nor myself have said that we believe we are perfect or don't impact on others. That's another blatant misrepresentation.
So, imagine how much you have impacted on the very being that created you.
If it created us, any imperfections are all down to its shoddy design!
Yes but think of all the self made men you know.
-
Some idiot Christians equate a small transgression, or something which isn't wrong like homosexuality as being as 'sinful' as murder or child sexual abuse. >:( They really need to wake up and smell the coffee!
You have to remember that that they have the supposed central figure of their religion as a model for this - a man with so little sense of perspective that merely eyeing up a right tasty bit of brisket from afar is morally equivalent to doing the do.
It renders void any sense of moral perspective whatsoever.
-
Neither Shaker nor myself have said that we believe we are perfect or don't impact on others. That's another blatant misrepresentation.
So, imagine how much you have impacted on the very being that created you.
If it created us, any imperfections are all down to its shoddy design!
Yes but think of all the self made men you know.
I've always aimed to be a self-made man who worships his creator.
-
Neither Shaker nor myself have said that we believe we are perfect or don't impact on others. That's another blatant misrepresentation.
So, imagine how much you have impacted on the very being that created you.
If it created us, any imperfections are all down to its shoddy design!
Yes but think of all the self made men you know.
I've always aimed to be a self-made man who worships his creator.
;D
-
Some idiot Christians equate a small transgression, or something which isn't wrong like homosexuality as being as 'sinful' as murder or child sexual abuse. >:( They really need to wake up and smell the coffee!
You have to remember that that they have the supposed central figure of their religion as a model for this - a man with so little sense of perspective that merely eyeing up a right tasty bit of brisket is morally equivalent to doing the do.
It's unfortunate for your argument Shaker that this has cropped up
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/11815224/Ashley-Madison-hack-how-many-British-users-did-adultery-site-really-have.html
Now what was that about 'breach of trust'?
-
So, would you say that most people have never ... lied, failed to fulfill a promise, spoken spitefully, done something that they had promised themselves, and others, that they would never do again, ... ?
Of course they have. That makes them pretty bog-standard, ordinary human beings - you see the same kinds of behaviours in chimps and bonobos, our nearest evolutionary ancestors -, ...
Good old Shaker, since he can't cope with the argument he introduces a red herring.
However, to satisfy you Shaker, the Bible makes it clear that the creation is messed up as a result of humanity's failure to exercise dominion over it. Now, I realise that many seem to regard 'dominion' as the same as 'domination' (and it is true that they come from the same root word.. If you look the words up in an etymological dictionary, you will find that there are differences in meaning. When you look them up in a Hebrew dictionary, 'dominion' refers to the responsible stewarding of what one owns, both for your benefit and the benefit of the property; 'domination' has no connotation of 'responsible stewardship'.
not factory-damaged, inherently tainted defects until and unless they claim to believe in a raft of ludicrous claims about magic SuperJew.
Where in the Bible does it even suggest that the animal kindom has to believe in Jesus, and his saving grace? That was for humanity's sake and, through humanity, will lead to the animal world being released from its humanly instituted suffering - things like pollution, the destruction of habitat and of the natural balance.
That is the whole point of what you like to call 'Christianity's blanket appraisal of all humanity as tainted'.
How ridiculous.
No-one is perfect.
No idea what 'perfect' is supposed to mean.
Look at your first paragraph. You seem to have understood it there.
Christians believ that human beings were designed to be perfect and to enjoy an untainted relationship with God.
What colossal wank.
OK, you can choose to bgelieve that, but where is the evidence to support your belief?
That has not worked out.
Did God (a) not know about this in advance, (b) know about this in advance, wanted to prevent it but was unable to, or (c) know about this in advance, wanted to prevent it, was able to prevent but chose not to?
He had the choice to make robots of his human creation or to give them free will, to do as they pleased. He decided the latter, which meant that he satisfied your point (c). Aren't you glad that he did, thus allowing you to choose the position you hold in this regard?
-
Hope just doesn't get it, does he! ::)
-
I've always aimed to be a self-made man who worships his creator.
So, you're an ancestor-worshipper, or at best, a parent-worshipper. ;) Or are you saying that you conceived yourself, and gave yourself the abilities that you have (not sure that you did very well in the argumentation stakes here, by the way)? :D
-
So, would you say that most people have never ... lied, failed to fulfill a promise, spoken spitefully, done something that they had promised themselves, and others, that they would never do again, ... ?
Of course they have. That makes them pretty bog-standard, ordinary human beings - you see the same kinds of behaviours in chimps and bonobos,
Bonobos?. Try dry humping everybody you meet instead of just shaking hands and you'll soon get a lesson from the judge in what constitutes moral terpitude.
Chimps, they chuck there own shit around when angry......come to think of it Shaker there could be a parallel there between you and chimps.
-
Hope just doesn't get it, does he! ::)
I get it quite well, Floo. I 'get it' that you and Shaker both exhibit shaky argumentation skills, especially when it comes to your respective philosophies of life.
-
Some idiot Christians equate a small transgression, or something which isn't wrong like homosexuality as being as 'sinful' as murder or child sexual abuse. >:( They really need to wake up and smell the coffee!
You have to remember that that they have the supposed central figure of their religion as a model for this - a man with so little sense of perspective that merely eyeing up a right tasty bit of brisket from afar is morally equivalent to doing the do.
It renders void any sense of moral perspective whatsoever.
No, moral subjectivity does that
-
Some idiot Christians equate a small transgression, or something which isn't wrong like homosexuality as being as 'sinful' as murder or child sexual abuse. >:( They really need to wake up and smell the coffee!
You have to remember that that they have the supposed central figure of their religion as a model for this - a man with so little sense of perspective that merely eyeing up a right tasty bit of brisket is morally equivalent to doing the do.
It's unfortunate for your argument Shaker that this has cropped up
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/11815224/Ashley-Madison-hack-how-many-British-users-did-adultery-site-really-have.html
Now what was that about 'breach of trust'?
Why is that unfortunate for my argument? You forgot to say.
-
Hope just doesn't get it, does he! ::)
No, but you have to remember that he labours under any number of delusions and woeful critical thinking skills (just look how often he wheels out the negative proof fallacy - it's practically every day that passes. Indeed, he's just done so again) which will be given the thorough intellectual raping of a lifetime they so eminently deserve as soon as I'm back on the PC rather than on my phone.
-
Good old Shaker, since he can't cope with the argument he introduces a red herring.
Which is what, exactly?
However, to satisfy you Shaker, the Bible makes it clear ...
This is supposed to satisfy me, is it? Why on earth are you even thinking of citing the Bible to an atheist and (as Vlad would be the second to tell you) anti-theist?
Where in the Bible does it even suggest that the animal kindom has to believe in Jesus, and his saving grace?
The reference to chimps and bonobos was in parenthesis, indicated as such by being bracketed by dashes, so it would have been apparent to any normally intelligent reader that I was referring to human beings in the context of ordinary human behaviours exhibited by the majority of that species every single day. Take the parenthetical part out if it makes it easier for you to follow; it now reads:
That makes them pretty bog-standard, ordinary human beings, not factory-damaged, inherently tainted defects until and unless they claim to believe in a raft of ludicrous claims about magic SuperJew.
I trust that that's simpler for you. Nevertheless: humans are members of the animal kingdom. Those members of it are told as much in the New Testament, passim.
OK, you can choose to bgelieve that
No, I can't. I can't choose my beliefs. I can only believe what presents itself to my reason as believable, based on evidence, experience and logic.
but where is the evidence to support your belief?
I knew you wouldn't let me down with your beloved negative proof fallacy!
He had the choice to make robots of his human creation or to give them free will, to do as they pleased. He decided the latter, which meant that he satisfied your point (c). Aren't you glad that he did, thus allowing you to choose the position you hold in this regard?
Assertion, assertion, assertiony assertion, with the emphasis very much on the ass (which you have to be to believe this crap).
-
So, you're an ancestor-worshipper, or at best, a parent-worshipper. ;) Or are you saying that you conceived yourself, and gave yourself the abilities that you have (not sure that you did very well in the argumentation stakes here, by the way)? :D
No, I'm saying that contrary to your assertion that there was a being who created me, I'm stating that there were two of them. They're usually known as parents.
-
Hope just doesn't get it, does he! ::)
I get it quite well, Floo. I 'get it' that you and Shaker both exhibit shaky argumentation skills, especially when it comes to your respective philosophies of life.
You have no argument at all if your efforts on this forum are any indication! ;D
-
Hope just doesn't get it, does he! ::)
I get it quite well, Floo. I 'get it' that you and Shaker both exhibit shaky argumentation skills, especially when it comes to your respective philosophies of life.
You have no argument at all if your efforts on this forum are any indication! ;D
Indeed. Hopeless is to rational thought and sound argumentation as Churchill was to Woodbines, but hey; he's good for target practice on a Sunday afternoon.
-
It trivialises evil to say that you and I are as fallen as a child molester or serial killer.
Does it, Rhi? Imagine that, following a number of things going missing in your home, you discover that their disappearance has been the work of your child, dspite their adamant denials that they have been involved. OK, s/he hasn't murdered anyone, hasn't abused anyone - or has she? Hasn't she abused your trust and your love?
Don't talk nonsense. Do you really think I'd feel the same about my child stealing from me as I would if they committed the worst kind of crimes? Actually if they stole from me I'd be mortified that something had happened that made them need to steal and they hadn't felt able to talk to me about it.
How petty you make your God sound.
-
Don't talk nonsense.
Too late was the cry!
-
Don't talk nonsense. ... if they stole from me I'd be mortified that something had happened that made them need to steal and they hadn't felt able to talk to me about it.
Isn't a feeling of mortification of this sort perhaps the worst form of feeling? It would seem, to me, to include disappointment, questioning why (as you've outlined in your post), anger, perhaps even revulsion. In fact, wouldn't you feel much the same in regard to another child's action along the lines I set out in my post #313.
-
No, I'm saying that contrary to your assertion that there was a being who created me, I'm stating that there were two of them. They're usually known as parents.
Precisely, you are an ancestor- or at best, a parent-worshipper who 'worships his creator' (#328).
-
... (just look how often he wheels out the negative proof fallacy - it's practically every day that passes. Indeed, he's just done so again)...
Almost as often as you do, Shaker. But then, I'm trying to learn from 2 masters of the skill.
-
No, I'm saying that contrary to your assertion that there was a being who created me, I'm stating that there were two of them. They're usually known as parents.
Precisely, you are an ancestor- or at best, a parent-worshipper who 'worships his creator' (#328).
Oh dear ::)
-
... (just look how often he wheels out the negative proof fallacy - it's practically every day that passes. Indeed, he's just done so again)...
Almost as often as you do, Shaker. But then, I'm trying to learn from 2 masters of the skill.
Do provide examples, with direct quotes and links, of where I've employed the negative proof fallacy/argument from-appeal to ignorance at all, let alone more often than you do.
-
Don't talk nonsense. ... if they stole from me I'd be mortified that something had happened that made them need to steal and they hadn't felt able to talk to me about it.
Isn't a feeling of mortification of this sort perhaps the worst form of feeling? It would seem, to me, to include disappointment, questioning why (as you've outlined in your post), anger, perhaps even revulsion. In fact, wouldn't you feel much the same in regard to another child's action along the lines I set out in my post #313.
I'm sure most human parents will feel some or all of those in differing degrees, but not as much as if they discovered that their child was an abuser or rapist. But if you are saying that God would feel the same about both then you are turning god into a petty egotistical maniac.
-
I'm sure most human parents will feel some or all of those in differing degrees, but not as much as if they discovered that their child was an abuser or rapist. But if you are saying that God would feel the same about both then you are turning god into a petty egotistical maniac.
This all seems perfectly normal to me Rhi; a parent will naturally feel disappointed that their child has stolen (whether from them personally or not), but not nearly as much as if that child was discovered to be, as you say, an abuser or rapist. Hope, for some bizarre, hysterical, melodramatic reason, thinks that the degree of disappointment would be the same. It's not egotistical mania; it's absolute and utter lunacy.
But then, remember that he has Biblical warrant for this in the recorded words of Jesus on adultery, for example.
-
Vlad, are you trying the old 'winning an argument by mimicking in a silly voice' tactic?
It trivialises evil to say that you and I are as fallen as a child molester or serial killer.
It seems to me that all you've done is adopt a set of beliefs that still makes you feel shit about yourself, only now you get the satisfaction of thinking that everyone else is shit, too.
I don't know what you mean by being shit. That's your invention.
I think you are mistaking an inferiority felt with other people with our relationship with God who so loves us that he gives his only begotten son.....but even that is lost on us in our recast of it as some kind of manslaughter.
I don't know, Vlad. All I'm hearing from you is that once you felt judged, now you judge yourself and others.
A loving parent doesn't make their children feel bad about themselves unless they are seriously screwed.
-
I'm sure most human parents will feel some or all of those in differing degrees, but not as much as if they discovered that their child was an abuser or rapist. But if you are saying that God would feel the same about both then you are turning god into a petty egotistical maniac.
This all seems perfectly normal to me Rhi; a parent will naturally feel disappointed that their child has stolen (whether from them personally or not), but not nearly as much as if that child was discovered to be, as you say, an abuser or rapist. Hope, for some bizarre, hysterical, melodramatic reason, thinks that the degree of disappointment would be the same. It's not egotistical mania; it's absolute and utter lunacy.
But then, remember that he has Biblical warrant for this in the recorded words of Jesus on adultery, for example.
A girl I knew stole from her family and was severely punished for it. She was too scared to tell her dad she was stealing to pay off the kids bullying her at school. In that scenario as a parent the person I'd be disappointed in would be myself.
-
Yeah :(
-
And yet according to Hope and others God doesn't see any difference in the actions of rapists or murderers or petty thieves, let alone a child stealing through fear and a child stealing through the desire for a new pair of trainers. It's faith as an intellectual exercise driven by the small-mindedness of human beings rather than genuine compassion and concern, and it has led to so much injustice done in God's name, from the mistreatment of single mothers to women stuck in abusive marriages to the ongoing injustices against gay Christians.
-
If you're expecting disagreement on any point, you've got the wrong chappy ;)
-
All I'm hearing from you is that once you felt judged, now you judge yourself and others.
Only God judges with accuracy Rhiannon. Judgment day is attended by us all. we are all judged.
How you react to that indicates your spiritual position. That's something I have no party to...nor want to.
-
Only God judges with accuracy Rhiannon. Judgment day is attended by us all. we are all judged.
Does Alan Burns know you've got his Assertionatron?
-
All I'm hearing from you is that once you felt judged, now you judge yourself and others.
Only God judges with accuracy Rhiannon. Judgment day is attended by us all. we are all judged.
How you react to that indicates your spiritual position. That's something I have no party to...nor want to.
Shame. You'd be a lot happier.
-
All I'm hearing from you is that once you felt judged, now you judge yourself and others.
Only God judges with accuracy Rhiannon. Judgment day is attended by us all. we are all judged.
How you react to that indicates your spiritual position. That's something I have no party to...nor want to.
Shame. You'd be a lot happier.
So much for not trying to proselytise.
-
You think I'm trying to convert you to something? No, I was just pointing out the benefits of not seeing yourself and others in such a poor light. You'll feel much more peaceful. Theism optional.
-
That's always the price of these failings though. Failings result in suffering.
So given that the imperfections that lead to these failings are part of the design, why are we held accountable and not the designer? Why do we face eternal torment/oblivion/separation whilst a god gets to sit in judgment on us for its own design failings?
Where's the justice in that?
God takes the penalty(The results of our failings) on himself.
How? Appearing as an avatar then 'dying' for three days out of infinity? A brief seat on the naughty step...
O.
-
Only God judges with accuracy Rhiannon. Judgment day is attended by us all. we are all judged.
I'm OK with that (on the assumption that your little fantasy is true),
How you react to that indicates your spiritual position. That's something I have no party to...nor want to.
How does my spirituality stand given that I'd rather answer for my own crimes whatever the consequences than have some other innocent person take the rap for me?
-
Only God judges with accuracy Rhiannon. Judgment day is attended by us all. we are all judged.
I'm OK with that (on the assumption that your little fantasy is true),
How you react to that indicates your spiritual position. That's something I have no party to...nor want to.
How does my spirituality stand given that I'd rather answer for my own crimes whatever the consequences than have some other innocent person take the rap for me?
As would anybody with an iota of empathy. The very idea of letting somebody else suffer for my wrong-doing is cowardly and dishonest.