Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

[jeremyp]

It's the fact that it fits perfectly rather than vaguely

As we have already discussed, it doesn't fit perfectly by any means.

[Spud]

As we have already discussed, it doesn't fit perfectly by any means.

You weren't thorough enough though. You said, the author thanks God that he will not be left in hell. But you didn't say  that he also thanks God that he will not see the grave.
There are two aspects of death described: the soul rests in Sheol once it becomes separated from the body. The body rests in the grave. The overall meaning of 16:10 is that David's soul and body will not be allowed to remain separated.
This hasn't been fulfilled by David, but it has by Jesus, who's soul was reunited with his body before it decayed.

[jeremyp]

You weren't thorough enough though. You said, the author thanks God that he will not be left in hell. But you didn't say  that he also thanks God that he will not see the grave.
There are two aspects of death described: the soul rests in Sheol once it becomes separated from the body. The body rests in the grave. The overall meaning of 16:10 is that David's soul and body will not be allowed to remain separated.
This hasn't been fulfilled by David, but it has by Jesus, who's soul was reunited with his body before it decayed.

Where does it say the psalm is about the Messiah?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It seems to be you who is struggling to understand. According to the insane injustice of your god, we are supposed to deserve death (just for being how god made us)

God made us in the image of God and we don’t earn death for that. Our offence is spoiling that image i.e. ourselves through omission or commission or our own deliberate fault

  but Jesus didn't properly die, because death is permanent and he didn't stay dead.

A definition which is questionable even before we consider the biblical view of death. How permanent is permanent? for instance a trillion years, a billion years, two days? It’s your claim so feel free to include any qualifications you need to in your justification. But lets see what the Oxford dictionary tells us death is…….

’’Definition of death noun from the Oxford Advanced American Dictionary
  death noun
The fact of someone dying or being killed
a sudden/violent/peaceful, etc. death
the anniversary of his wife's death
an increase in deaths from cancer
He died a slow and painful death.
The end of life; the state of being dead
The victim bled to death before the ambulance arrived (= he died as a result of bleeding).
He's drinking himself to death (= so that it will kill him).
Death of something the permanent end or destruction of something
Death [ (literary) the power that destroys life, imagined as human in form

So these definitions, aside from the contentious ‘’permanence’’ angle are met in the Biblical accounts of Jesus death which being a crucifixion and sundry strains and exhaustions on the body would have involved bleedings out, bone breakages, haemorrhaging not to mention a spearing to make sure and then lying in a cave for two days rather than an ICU, certainly looks like a violent Killing, a death which had a T.O.D., an anniversary and something beyond the scope of man or nature to reverse.
 Biblically of course Jesus experiences what we will all experience i.e. Death and resurrection. The atheist doesn’t have the luxury of a permanent end.

The whole idea of Jesus taking our punishment is insane and unjust anyway, but even if it wasn't, and even if the story is true, he didn't take our punishment at all.

No what is unjust is the proposal that any wrong doing not detected by fallible human legal systems and moral enforcement Is simply wiped off the slate i.e. the moral principle of ‘’not getting caught’’ but worse than that the idea of victimless crime is insane and unjust. Wrongdoing damages, even if that damage is to the perpetrator themselves. Jesus does take away the consequences and opens the way to God.

[Stranger]

God made us in the image of God and we don’t earn death for that. Our offence is spoiling that image i.e. ourselves through omission or commission or our own deliberate fault

As I keep on pointing our and you keep in totally ignoring: not according to your book of myths, which claims we are all sinners. That means that we have no choice. If there were a genuine choice, then at least some people would take it. Yet again: a test that everybody fails is obviously inappropriate.

Either your god should have done a better job of creating humans or it should have a more approbate test.

Of course, the 'original sin' nonsense would be just as unjust because we'd then be being punished for some people eating the wrong fruit (or whatever you think that represents) long before we were born.

A definition which is questionable even before we consider the biblical view of death. How permanent is permanent?

You seem to be struggling with the notion of 'permanent'. How about this: death is irreversible. Get it? There is no applicable time.

No what is unjust is the proposal that any wrong doing not detected by fallible human legal systems and moral enforcement Is simply wiped off the slate i.e. the moral principle of ‘’not getting caught’’ but worse than that the idea of victimless crime is insane and unjust. Wrongdoing damages, even if that damage is to the perpetrator themselves. Jesus does take away the consequences and opens the way to God.

No matter how you dress it up, it's still insane and unjust. The fact that you are desperately trying to justify it speaks volumes about how faith corrupts even normal human values of fairness, justice, and decency.

The punishment is way out of all proportion to most people's 'crimes' and the idea that somebody else can be brutally tortured to death to 'pay' for them is barbaric and absurd.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

from: Walt Zingmatilder on September 25, 2023, 02:17:58 PM
You've just misunderstood what christianity is saying.

Given the plethora of cults and sects of Christianity, so have the majority of the Christians.

Sounds like a red herring or tu quoque or non sequitur to me

You owe God.

For what? If you accept the concept of a god, I didn't exist before God decided to put me on Earth with a potentially eternal punishment for failing to comply with poorly-communicated and oftentimes apparently arbitrary rules which are so important they've been changed multiple times. I don't owe god anything more than basic human decency.

You have offended the good for your own ego’s aggrandisement on several occasions or to put it another way God is the judge of human decency. People are still able to judge when they have offended against even that and others or even you will have pointed out to you where you indeed have.
 A human(common) decency that only you and your chums fulfil is a bit of a put up job, don’t you think?

By blood sacrifice? If God can pay it himself, why was he holding the 'debt' over me? What kind of justice is it where someone else should rightly pay the penalty of the offender?…..and yet that is precisely what you are advocating here
The cost that he arbitrarily decided had to be paid for his actions for which he was holding us responsible? If that's the case... that sounds fair.

No he’s paying for the actions you are responsible for…..that’s what mercy is
Since he's paid what you owe.

Then the slate's clean, we can all walk away and not have to worry about this nonsense any more?

Being worried about all this runs contradictory to your argument about theophobia somewhat and that is that niggling concern that I advocate that people explore in themselves.
Having said that what it all means is the Lifeboat has arrived Outrider…….are you going to turn it away?

[Enki]

God made us in the image of God and we don’t earn death for that. Our offence is spoiling that image i.e. ourselves through omission or commission or our own deliberate fault  ........

And such a view leads easily, it seems, to some (such as C S Lewis) to consider human beings in this fallen state to be little more than vermin and a horror to God,  an attitude which no doubt reinforced such practices as the Magdalene Laundries.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The defence of ontological naturalism in the Internet encyclopedia of philosophy

Ontological naturalism should not be seen as a dogmatic commitment, its defenders have insisted,

When then should we be committed to it? Wednesdays, the summer? Not in a built up area after the hours of darkness?

but rather as a defeasible hypothesis that is supported by centuries of inquiry into the supernatural.

Having previously distinguished between ontological naturalism and methodological naturalism the article here reconflates the two

As scientific explanations have expanded to include more details about the workings of natural objects and laws, i.e. increased the knowledge derived from methodological naturalism there has been less and less room or need for invoking God as an explanation.

This is the religion as failed science fallacy

  It is not clear that expansion of scientific knowledge disproves the existence of God in any formal sense any more than it has disproven the existence of fairies, the atheistic naturalist argues.

Category error confusing falsifiable and non falsifiable claims and horses laugh fallacy here

[Nearly Sane]

Moderator Two posts, one of Vald's which was incorrectly posted here and a reply from Stranger have been moved to the Searching for God epic

[Outrider]

Sounds like a red herring or tu quoque or non sequitur to me

I'm sorry if that was too subtle for you, I'll spell it out. You suggest that there is a definitively correct Christianity, but the plethora of mutually-contradictory sects and cults which accrete into the morass that is 'Christianity' would suggest that's not the case. How, therefore, can I be said to 'misunderstand' when it's not clear what the party line is, even before you try to establish that any of them has any validity.

You have offended the good for your own ego’s aggrandisement on several occasions

I've no doubt offended someone, at some point. Whether or not they're 'good' is for you to demonstrate, but being good doesn't entitle someone to be isolated from offence.

or to put it another way God is the judge of human decency.

God of the repeated human genocide? God of the 'I am a jealous god' fame? God of the 'rules for humanity' which don't preclude rape or slavery, but have special rules for genital mutilation, trendy haircuts and limiting farming practices? I reject your god's application and obviously inappropriate.

People are still able to judge when they have offended against even that and others or even you will have pointed out to you where you indeed have.

What's the punishment for abuse of the English language? What the hell is that even supposed to mean?

A human(common) decency that only you and your chums fulfil is a bit of a put up job, don’t you think?

The overwhelming majority of the Christians, Muslims, Jews and just people in general that I know typically practice a reasonable level of human decency, I wouldn't restrict it to one particular group. Only a rabid anti-theist would (or the straw-man of one) would even suggest such a thing, I think.

No he’s paying for the actions you are responsible for

Apart from the fact that the price is unjustifiable (I note that you didn't address the problematic 'blood sacrifice' element), and the fact that we've just established that I'm not cosmically responsible for fulfilling my inevitable destiny in a created universe, and that god isn't really paying (as he doesn't 'die' like real people do)... but apart from that, it still doesn't explain why it needs the spiritual drama-queenery to 'forgive' humanity for being the humans that he created them as.

that’s what mercy is

No, mercy is forgiving WITHOUT THE NEED FOR A PAYMENT.

Since he's paid what you owe.

Can I get an invoice for that, I'll declare it on my P11D as a gift in kind...

Being worried about all this runs contradictory to your argument about theophobia somewhat and that is that niggling concern that I advocate that people explore in themselves.

On the contrary, being worried about people treating this sort of nonsense as though it had any place in the modern world is exactly why it's entirely justifiable that we stand up and point out the ridiculous claims of religion - the world needs people to point out that the Emperor has not clothes.

Having said that what it all means is the Lifeboat has arrived Outrider…….are you going to turn it away?

Even if I was prepared to pay the price, despite the snake-oil assertion that it's already been paid, I can't find the pay machine, can't convert any of my cash into spiritual dollars and object to the fact that they charge (but claim they don't) for a seat on the lifeboat...

O.

[Outrider]

When then should we be committed to it? Wednesdays, the summer? Not in a built up area after the hours of darkness?

Until someone comes up with something equally as reliable.

Having previously distinguished between ontological naturalism and methodological naturalism the article here reconflates the two

I think the issue is that whilst naturalism has vanishingly few ontological adherents, it has allegations of innumerable onotological adherents. The article is pointing out that straw-man, you appear to have missed that.

This is the religion as failed science fallacy

I don't see it like that. It doesn't suggest that religion was an attempt to do what science now does, but it does identify that people took from religion an understanding of reality which has been supplanted by science.

Category error confusing falsifiable and non falsifiable claims and horses laugh fallacy here.

How can you have a category error between two undemonstrated phenomena? You know nothing definitive about what is claimed to be god, or about what is claimed to be fairies. You can compare the claims, and draw conclusions from investigation of those claims, but given that the investigations both come with 'not proven' you cannot say anything definitive about either. The categorical error, therefore is in your interpretation that there is a categorical difference between those two (and perhaps any) supernatural claims.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And such a view leads easily, it seems, to some (such as C S Lewis) to consider human beings in this fallen state to be little more than vermin and a horror to God,  an attitude which no doubt reinforced such practices as the Magdalene Laundries.

Slippery slope Enki? Happily We are not forced to react or agree with Mr Lewis's alleged permission or agree with the practices of the Magdalene nuns which seems to just underline the existence of sin.

I am not familiar with how CS Lewis's words reinforced the goings on at the magdalene laundries so perhaps you could oblige.

Sin alienates us from God. It certainly can make God a horror to us

[jeremyp]

God made us in the image of God and we don’t earn death for that. Our offence is spoiling that image i.e. ourselves through omission or commission or our own deliberate fault

Didn't God realise it was all going to go wrong? It seems remarkably short sighted of him.

A definition which is questionable

Only if you are trying to dodge the inescapable fact that Jesus dying for our sins but then coming alive again makes no sense.

No what is unjust is the proposal that any wrong doing not detected by fallible human legal systems and moral enforcement Is simply wiped off the slate i.e. the moral principle of ‘’not getting caught’’ but worse than that the idea of victimless crime is insane and unjust. Wrongdoing damages, even if that damage is to the perpetrator themselves.

Jesus does take away the consequences and opens the way to God.

So by taking away the consequences, Jesus wipes wrongdoing off the slate. You just said that is unjust.

Can you see why non Christians view your doctrine as incoherent?

[Enki]

Slippery slope Enki?

On the contrary. The idea of 'fallen' women has pervaded Christian thought over centuries, and that stems essentially from the story of Eve. Indeed the Magdalene laundries had no equivalent for men. As the Archbishop of Tuam, Dr Thomas Gilmartin, said in 1925:
The future of the country is bound up with the dignity and purity of the women of Ireland”[/quote] Men, it seemed, were sinful as a direct result of the iniquities of the women, and, in particular, of the sexual kind.

Happily We are not forced to react or agree with Mr Lewis's alleged permission or agree with the practices of the Magdalene nuns which seems to just underline the existence of sin.

Of course we aren't. My own view is that Lewis showed himself to be a a very limited, small minded example of the times in which he lived. I don't use the word 'sin' but certainly the Magdalene laundries throughout a range of countries seemed to show extreme cruelty, both physical and mental, in many cases.

I am not familiar with how CS Lewis's words reinforced the goings on at the magdalene laundries so perhaps you could oblige.

His demeaning attitude towards women and his despicable descriptions of how humans are to be regarded reflects the appalling attitude of the nuns in some of these establishments. If you regard human beings as vermin, then you run the risk of treating them inhumanely.

According to that doctrine(the doctrine of the fall), man is now a horror to God and to himself and a creature ill-adapted to the universe not because God made him so but because he has made himself so by the abuse of his free will.

C S Lewis "The Problem Of Pain" p63 Collins Edition

Theoretically, I suppose we might say, 'Yes: we behave like vermin, but then that is because we are vermin. And that, at any rate, is not our fault.' But the fact that we are vermin, so far from being felt as an excuse, is a greater shame and grief to us than any of the particular acts which it leads us to commit.

C S Lewis "The Problem Of Pain" p81 Collins Edition

Sin alienates us from God. It certainly can make God a horror to us

As I have no belief in any god, the idea of alienation from God has no significance for me. I certainly regard the attitudes and machinations of some Christians and some Christian organizations with repugnance.

[Spud]

Where does it say the psalm is about the Messiah?

We have to read the psalms in the light of God's promise to David. Many of them contain details that help us identify the Messiah, and as you said, that process is back projection. The promise of an everlasting kingdom is partly fulfilled in the OT kings but we'd have to get clues as to how it is to be fulfilled completely from the details in the psalms. But you're right, it is a post-hoc identification process, for Peter based on the fact of the resurrection .

[jeremyp]

We have to read the psalms in the light of God's promise to David.

Ah, so it isn't about the Messiah. You are just making stuff up.

[Spud]

Ah, so it isn't about the Messiah. You are just making stuff up.

In light of the resurrection, yes it is.

[jeremyp]

In light of the resurrection, yes it is.

No, that's you back projecting again.

A prophecy is no good if you have to wait until after the thing it prophesies happens before you can identify it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'm sorry if that was too subtle for you, I'll spell it out. You suggest that there is a definitively correct Christianity, but the plethora of mutually-contradictory sects and cults which accrete into the morass that is 'Christianity' would suggest that's not the case. How, therefore, can I be said to 'misunderstand' when it's not clear what the party line is, even before you try to establish that any of them has any validity.

Well let me make it clear to you. I do not represent or have any interest in any 'christianity' that does not follow the creeds of the early church. I would have thought that it was a simple matter for you to find out what these are, given the inordinate amount of time you give over to criticism. What is it anyway, that distinguishes your opening complaint from an admission of ignorance of orthodox christianity and the main heresies?

God of the repeated human genocide?

or rather the God of the lesser evil

God of the 'I am a jealous god' fame?

what do you think that results in? Would you agree that you are in no relationship with God? How then does God's jealousy affect you? Am I pleased that God will not let me be seduced into the damnable because of his jealousy. You betcha.
 

God of the 'rules for humanity' which don't preclude rape or slavery

I'm afraid I don't buy into the idea that it is only thanks to the enlightenment that rape and slavery were abolished, The most abject Slavery being pagan and commercial

but have special rules for genital mutilation, trendy haircuts and limiting farming practices? I reject your god's application and obviously inappropriate.

I'm afraid you are talking to a chappy of the wrong religion on this one.

The overwhelming majority of the Christians, Muslims, Jews and just people in general that I know typically practice a reasonable level of human decency, I wouldn't restrict it to one particular group.

Human decency is derived from religious conviction and enlightened self interest I would move...with self interest being the weak link in human decency.

Apart from the fact that the price is unjustifiable (I note that you didn't address the problematic 'blood sacrifice' element),

Blood sacrifice occurs in war or even the lady crossing the road who helps someone and gets ploughed into by a car

and the fact that we've just established that I'm not cosmically responsible for fulfilling my inevitable destiny in a created universe, and that god isn't really paying (as he doesn't 'die' like real people do)

We haven't established that at all. God gives you free will in moral choices. That is all he is guilty of, any moral choices being yours. Again he is the only one who dies for those choices...

No, mercy is forgiving WITHOUT THE NEED FOR A PAYMENT.

That is just forgetting, not forgiving and therefore what you describe as mercy is just letting someone get away with it. Secondly and perhaps more importantly what is the effect of the mercy on the perpetrator? Is the perpetrator moved to repentance or is it business as usual?

On the contrary, being worried about people treating this sort of nonsense as though it had any place in the modern world

Fallacy of modernity

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Until someone comes up with something equally as reliable.

I take it then you think we should have a dogmatic commitmentment to ontological naturalism

I don't see it like that. It doesn't suggest that religion was an attempt to do what science now does, but it does identify that people took from religion an understanding of reality which has been supplanted by science.

I have both religion and science, how then does science supplant religion? Doesn't that rather mean that people for whom science is now their cassus vivendi are neglecting an aspect of themselves?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Didn't God realise it was all going to go wrong? It seems remarkably short sighted of him.

How has the universe all gone wrong? If 'right' is a universe with entities with moral free will then what has gone 'wrong'?

Only if you are trying to dodge the inescapable fact that Jesus dying for our sins but then coming alive again makes no sense.

Again, Jesus dies in the demonstration of how all human deaths have, do and will occur. All die, all are resurrected and whoever has consented, resurrected in the glory and blessing of God

So by taking away the consequences, Jesus wipes wrongdoing off the slate. You just said that is unjust.

Wrong doing hasn't been wiped of the slate Jesus has taken on the consequences of sin in existential and cosmic terms namely the experience of separation from God and in human terms, the death of himself to himself. There is no casual just forgetting about it all going on here.

Can you see why non Christians view your doctrine as incoherent?

Not non christians who aren't caricaturing the doctrine, no.

[Stranger]

I take it then you think we should have a dogmatic commitmentment to ontological naturalism

Another English comprehension fail.   

How has the universe all gone wrong? If 'right' is a universe with entities with moral free will then what has gone 'wrong'?

'Free will' is a fundamentally incoherent concept with respect to an omniscient, omnipotent creator. Such a being would effectively have full control over our nature, nurture, and life experience. Also, if you think the universe is a design, then it's shit. Look at all the unnecessary suffering, not all of which can be blamed on humans, even if the idea of 'free will' wasn't absurd (which it obviously is).

[Walt Zingmatilder]

On the contrary. The idea of 'fallen' women has pervaded Christian thought over centuries, and that stems essentially from the story of Eve.

But the more pressing message from Adam and Eve is the fall of mankind. concentration on the fall of woman is not a requisite for getting the point of the story which if we follow it through we see the consequences of Adam's sin, murder, expressed in terms of two brothers

Indeed the Magdalene laundries had no equivalent for men. As the Archbishop of Tuam, Dr Thomas Gilmartin, said in 1925:
The future of the country is bound up with the dignity and purity of the women of Ireland” Men, it seemed, were sinful as a direct result of the iniquities of the women, and, in particular, of the sexual kind.

And again it is an example of human evil of sin rather than your own gradation of sin where, if only catholics were removed the world would be a better place

My own view is that Lewis showed himself to be a a very limited, small minded example of the times in which he lived. I don't use the word 'sin' but certainly the Magdalene laundries throughout a range of countries seemed to show extreme cruelty, both physical and mental, in many cases.

No He was a very big minded example of the times he lived who unlike Russell never indentured his intellect to the high rolling life of an upper class shagger.

His demeaning attitude towards women

His marriage to a feisty female american former atheist jew for me tends not to bear that out, however I am prepared to accept how this would need repentance from a stuffy oxford academic misogyny......something Dawkins has yet to pull off?

and his despicable descriptions of how humans are to be regarded reflects the appalling attitude of the nuns in some of these establishments. If you regard human beings as vermin, then you run the risk of treating them inhumanely.

I missed this, getting as I did the chief points of the book still, I suppose it depends what your motives are for reading it.
As for viewing humanity in moral terms as a lowly and unpleasant blighting species that is a term found in green philosophy. What is lost on you apparently is in christianity we have the biblical perspective that ''God so loved the world that he gave his only son''

Lewis is right to be scathing about the human record and any rose tinted presentation of it.

As I have no belief in any god, the idea of alienation from God has no significance for me. I certainly regard the attitudes and machinations of some Christians and some Christian organizations with repugnance.

I am the same with some secularists and some secular organisationsas well as some christian ones.
Sadly I also suspect publicly professed atheists of indifference not only to alienation from God but alienation from others and the issue of self alienation.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Another English comprehension fail.   

'Free will' is a fundamentally incoherent concept with respect to an omniscient, omnipotent creator. Such a being would effectively have full control over our nature, nurture, and life experience. Also, if you think the universe is a design, then it's shit. Look at all the unnecessary suffering, not all of which can be blamed on humans, even if the idea of 'free will' wasn't absurd (which it obviously is).

What you are saying is that an omnipotent creator is not able to create a being with freewill. Now that is ''shit'' as you say.

[Stranger]

What you are saying is that an omnipotent creator is not able to create a being with freewill. Now that is ''shit'' as you say.

Do you think omnipotence extends to doing the self-contradictory?

If so, then fine, your god could reach down and literally draw a square circle on my desk and free will is possible but you have to abandon all claims to have used reasoning or evidence to reach that conclusion because they cannot be used to support self-contradiction.

If not, then my point stands. Even omnipotence cannot produce beings with free will with respect to an omnipotent and omniscient creator.

I also note that you didn't address the unnecessary suffering....