The Righteous Heathen

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
A question to all you theists. If a person lives their life according to an ethical and moral code comparable with that prescribed by your religion, but remains happy to reject said credo, often and explicitly, what do you imagine happens to their 'soul' upon their demise?

i like to think jesus would be very dissapointed with them. as such, they will get the worse parking spaces in heaven and they will have to sweep the streets for 1 hour each day. for a 1000 standard years.

Originally posted by Starrman
How is it possible to have a discussion with you if you never actually deal directly with the questions posed to you?

Not to step on jaywill's lines, but you're the disingenuous one here. Your game of 20 questions is designed to supposedly find some weakness in the integrity of God--- either he's not fair, doesn't tell the truth, isn't consistent, or using some other twisted piece of logic, is somehow less than He tells us He actually is.

This assumption on your part--- that somehow your righteousness exceeds God's--- is a type of arrogance that is so blinding that your quest for answers can never be satisfied, no matter how many questions you can think to ask or how many of them are answered satisfactorily.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Not to step on jaywill's lines, but you're the disingenuous one here. Your game of 20 questions is designed to supposedly find some weakness in the integrity of God--- either he's not fair, doesn't tell the truth, isn't consistent, or using some other twisted piece of logic, is somehow [b]less than He tells us He actually is.

This assumption on you r how many questions you can think to ask or how many of them are answered satisfactorily.[/b]

Not to step on Starrman's lines but you're the disingenuous one here; in that you ridicule the efforts of rational inquiry on the matter of whether your or anyone else's construction/conceptualisation of God is accurate or tenable. You have the position that if any claims about this god are found by us to have contradictions we should not dare to broach the matter as if it is an act of blasphemy we should acknowledge.

The assumption on your part--- that somehow you have access to knowledge which is beyond the realms of human capacity to have (by the very definition of 'supernatural'😉 is a type of arrogance that is so blinding that in your quest to fend off questions, you feel you're always successful inspite of however often your responses are simply non-answers.

🙂

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Not to step on jaywill's lines, but you're the disingenuous one here. Your game of 20 questions is designed to supposedly find some weakness in the integrity of God--- either he's not fair, doesn't tell the truth, isn't consistent, or using some other twisted piece of logic, is somehow [b]less than He tells us He actually is.

This assumption on you ...[text shortened]... r how many questions you can think to ask or how many of them are answered satisfactorily.[/b]

If Starrman finds a logical contradiction in jaywill's definition of God then the validity of Starrman's argument has little to do how Starrman's righteousness compares with the one of that particular God.

Originally posted by Agerg
Not to step on Starrman's lines but you're the disingenuous one here; in that you ridicule the efforts of rational inquiry on the matter of whether your or anyone else's construction/conceptualisation of God is accurate or tenable. You have the position that if any claims about this god are found by us to have contradictions we should not dare to broach the ma ...[text shortened]... re always successful inspite of however often your responses are simply non-answers.

🙂

... that somehow you have access to knowledge which is beyond the realms of human capacity to have...
Here's where your thinking left the path. There is no such assumption. The only assumption I carry with respect to the subject mater, i.e., the Bible, is that we all have access to a serviceable version of the same.

How we proceed from there makes all the difference, of course. The polite person limits interruption until such time as the speaker is finished with their train of thought. The impolite demands explanation at every bump in the road, real or perceived. For instance, over the course of many threads herein, we have already established that man's righteousness (justice, fairness, veracity, etc.) is--- at best--- relative: it all depends on factors unrelated or attached to an immovable standard.

However, when we read the Bible, we see multiple assertions of God's immutability, such as this one in Malachi:

"For I the LORD, I
change not... "

and yet almost immediately in Genesis we read of God changing His mind about man. It doesn't take a lot of deep thought to detect some trouble here in reconciling the two assertions. In the face of apparent contradiction (or, at very least, irreconcilable differences), what are our choices? For those who consider themselves overly clever (as though they were the first to see such problems), this 'issue' becomes a one-note symphony repeatedly played. For those who consider themselves students, this becomes a source of great comfort.

How so for the latter? I will give you anecdotal support. Quite some time ago, I had a pet issue that held my thinking in fundamental grip. I was able to support my thinking on the issue six days to Sunday, from any possible angle... or so I thought. When I finally allowed the Scripture to say what it had to say--- without interruption--- I found my pet dead. Relieved of the weight, I now faced another issue related to God's character and I was perplexed on how to resolve it. So I resolved to let it go. I did not let it go because I was giving up on caring; I gave up because I couldn't resolve it. I am not speaking of minor incongruities, but rather, deal breakers.

The encouragement for giving up was the reminder of the relief realized regarding the death of my pet. I figured that since I could have been so incredibly wrong for so incredibly long on such a simple-in-retrospect issue, and since He had provided the answer a long, long time before I had the issue or even happened on the scene, He might just have the answer to this new supposedly-bigger problem I faced. Clif Notes: He had the answer.

Since then, I continued to have those same resolve-one-issue-to-run-into-another-bigger-one issues for quite some time. Each and every time, the resolve was 'slap to the forehead' simple, the kind where you laugh at your own stupidity while being comforted with the realization that a greater genius planned for all of it. The comfort began to outweigh the sting of my forehead and I eventually started looking forward to those little puzzles--- kind of like the crowds that came out for Houdini.

In short, I came to the realization that as smart as I was (and I used to think myself very, very smart), He was smarter. The only way I could find out, I also realized, was to be a bit more polite.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]... that somehow you have access to knowledge which is beyond the realms of human capacity to have...
Here's where your thinking left the path. There is no such assumption. The only assumption I carry with respect to the subject mater, i.e., the Bible, is that we all have access to a serviceable version of the same.

How we proceed from there arter. The only way I could find out, I also realized, was to be a bit more polite.[/b]

I argue you make a massive assumption...That being your holy book, and your interpretation of said holy book is more accurate than any competing views. Don't forget that your Bible isn't the only "truth" in town for we also have another serious contender: the Qu-ran. In addition to this, consider the Scientology movement! which we can trace back to it's founder less than 60 years ago. Though questionable as to whether it is a large enough organisation that it may be considered a religion; it's adherents still consider:

75 million years ago Xenu brought billions of people to Earth in spacecraft resembling Douglas DC-8 airliners, stacked them around volcanoes and detonated hydrogen bombs in the volcanoes. The thetans then clustered together, stuck to the bodies of the living, and continue to do this today (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology)

As the most accurate account of our origins. (By the way, for any theist who derides the teachings of L Ron Hubbard, I say they are being hypocritical; many of you believe in a man that was the son of God, conceived by a virgin, walked on water and died on the cross to forgive the sins of mankind (in particular, Adam and Eve, acting on the advice of a talking serpent, eating from the tree of Knowledge in the Garden of Eden), in addition to other tall tales)
Then there are of course the numbers of other systems of belief or cults etc... which to have a different perspective on the matter of "truth". (Pre-empting an argumentum ad populum response, there are more people that don't believe the Bible to be truth than those that do)

But then on top of this assumption the Bible is factual representation of your god; you (and/or others) extrapolate and form happy (whilst un-warranted) conclusions about 'God', the afterlife, souls, morality and the rest.

You mention that the impolite listeners fail to wait until the entire story has been told. I argue to the contrary that it is impolite in rational conversation when one forms a chain of inferences from a premise or collection of premises that the listener(s) have yet to ascertain are even valid (nevermind whether they are truthful or not), without accepting questions on said points.

As for the remainder of your post, it is a shame to hear about the loss of your pet but what seems to be your motivation for posting it is to drive home the point that to resolve contradictions it is better to ignore them and assume it all works out somehow (correct me if I'm wrong please). I on the otherhand would ask the question as to whether the religious belief system which led to such contradictions needs to be revised or discarded.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]... that somehow you have access to knowledge which is beyond the realms of human capacity to have...
Here's where your thinking left the path. There is no such assumption. The only assumption I carry with respect to the subject mater, i.e., the Bible, is that we all have access to a serviceable version of the same.

How we proceed from there ...[text shortened]... arter. The only way I could find out, I also realized, was to be a bit more polite.[/b]

Well I'm intrigued now and you've left me hanging! Go on, 'fess up - how do you reconcile the immutability and the change of mind?

Originally posted by Agerg
I argue you make a [b]massive assumption...That being your holy book, and your interpretation of said holy book is more accurate than any competing views. Don't forget that your Bible isn't the only "truth" in town for we also have another serious contender: the Qu-ran. In addition to this, consider the Scientology movement! which we can trace back to it's ...[text shortened]... ous belief system which led to such contradictions needs to be revised or discarded.[/b]

That being your holy book, and your interpretation of said holy book is more accurate than any competing views.
We proceed from positions of comfort at our paces.

Don't forget that your Bible isn't the only "truth" in town for we also have another serious contender: the Qu-ran.
Islam was based on erroneous interpretations of OT concepts and history, thus quickly dispatched.

In addition to this, consider the Scientology movement! which we can trace back to it's founder less than 60 years ago.
In 1947, Hubbard wrote to the Veterans Administration requesting psychiatric help.
http://www.ronthenut.org/beg.htm

By the way, for any theist who derides the teachings of L Ron Hubbard, I say they are being hypocritical...
They would be hypocritical for dismissing him on any basis for which their own beliefs fail. Conveniently, God's method of operation is consistent with generally accepted laws of evidential proof.

Then there are of course the numbers of other systems of belief or cults etc... which to have a different perspective on the matter of "truth".
True that. It is highly improbable that you have ceased in any of your pursuits of happiness on the basis of seeing others do the same in a manner dissimilar to your methods.

Pre-empting an argumentum ad populum response, there are more people that don't believe the Bible to be truth than those that do...
I suppose we should all stop using the internet, then.

I argue to the contrary that it is impolite in rational conversation when one forms a chain of inferences from a premise or collection of premises that the listener(s) have yet to ascertain are even valid (nevermind whether they are truthful or not), without accepting questions on said points.
Quite the contrary, really. In the Western world, Christianity has been the default position of the overwhelming population--- in one form or another--- since Constantinople. While any number lines of thought could be pursued relative to the merits of that influence, what must be accepted and acknowledged first and foremost is that historical fact.

Now armed with knowns, one could move to causes if so inclined. However, one cannot move from a known to an accurate conclusion based upon an unsupported claim, which is what you have accomplished with your dismissal of Christianity as nothing more than a collection of tall tales. Your conclusion might be valid but your formula is a vessel unfit for even calm water. The histrocity of acceptance must first be dealt with before venturing into the histrocity of the Bible itself. Blanket rejection of Christians owing to their idiocy only serves to make the holes in your boat larger.

As for the remainder of your post, it is a shame to hear about the loss of your pet but what seems to be your motivation for posting it is to drive home the point that to resolve contradictions it is better to ignore them and assume it all works out somehow (correct me if I'm wrong please).
My lack of artfulness resulted in your misapprehension. The thing that died was my pet issue, not an actual pet. It died as a result of the light shed on my reasoning when I (finally) allowed Scripture to speak without interruption or superimposition from me. As a result of my abandoning of the issue, I was face-to-face with another problem which appeared to be unresolvable. In time, the unresolvable was effortlessly untangled. After no small number of these occurrences, I stopped shirking from hard questions, ceased protecting God. By limiting my interruptions, I found that He's been kicking ass since before asses were around.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
Well I'm intrigued now and you've left me hanging! Go on, 'fess up - how do you reconcile the immutability and the change of mind?

A few different ways, but one main concept is language of accommodation.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
A few different ways, but one main concept is language of accommodation.

I would like you to expand on this if you are amenable.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]That being your holy book, and your interpretation of said holy book is more accurate than any competing views.
We proceed from positions of comfort at our paces.

Don't forget that your Bible isn't the only "truth" in town for we also have another serious contender: the Qu-ran.
Islam was based on erroneous interpretations of OT concepts my interruptions, I found that He's been kicking ass since before asses were around.[/b]

I'm not sure how "We proceed from positions of comfort at our paces." is a rebuttal to the point I made which led to it but I'll carry on regardless.
You say that Islam is based on an erroneous interpretation of OT concepts and history, and is thus quickly dispatched.

Dispatched by whom? You?? other Christians???

Of course you are going to see other "wrong" religions as a diversion away from the "one true" path...otherwise you wouldn't be a Christian!!! I'm sure you've heard people say that much your Christian heritage and symbolism was lifted from paganism too; but you will of course ignore these claims. (Because again, if you were to have taken them seriously you perhaps wouldn't have so strong the position you currently hold) The fact of the matter though, is that despite your damning analysis of other religions; there are plenty of alternatives which are well subscribed by people who fail to see as valid or well founded your own objections. As for the evidence that L Ron Hubbard is a nutcase, you might have a solid case but it is a moot point because I'm not making arguments for the veracity of this belief system; merely the argument that inspite of it's origins there are plenty enough people who will buy into it in the same way that people will buy into Christianity, Islam or any other religions.
They are all (including yourself) working from assumptions that have not been justified.

You mention that God's method of operation is consistent with generally accepted laws of evidential proof. When you say generally accepted do you refer to a general collection out of a subset of people that subscribe to your faith?? If not, precisely what evidential proof does one have for Bible God which would be generally accepted (ie: by people with no bias towards one religion or another)

Then there are of course the numbers of other systems of belief or cults etc... which to have a different perspective on the matter of "truth".
True that. It is highly improbable that you have ceased in any of your pursuits of happiness on the basis of seeing others do the same in a manner dissimilar to your methods.
Pre-empting an argumentum ad populum response, there are more people that don't believe the Bible to be truth than those that do...
I suppose we should all stop using the internet, then.
But the pursuits of happiness in a general sense need not be mutually exclusive or in contradiction with other pursuits. This is not usually the case with religion (in particular yours). If your latter point was that we should not use the internet because of the greater number that don't use it; please enlighten me as to how this is any worthy form of counter-rebuttal to my own.

As regards your penultimate response...No!!! This is again an argument based on greater numbers and carries little weight. To see this just invert the statement and say Christianity is not the default position of the World (minus a subset of the Western world).
The historicity of acceptance needs no further acknowledgement than their are lots of people who have believed your claims to be true (at least in part). Similarly there are lots of people who have believed in astrology, a flat earth, that it is sweet and fitting to die for one's country, that black people are an inferior race, etc...
I prefer to form my conclusions with reason (and re-evaluate them in the presence of evidence/valid arguments to the contrary); not with the weight of sheep against my back. This is not a statement about such people being stupid (ie: their idiocy) btw; more it is a statement about sloppy reasoning.


and for your last point I acknowledge your correction about pets and pet issues. I made a mistake. I still fail to see precisely how what you said previously appeared as contradictions were resolved by ceasing to question them however.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
I would like you to expand on this if you are amenable.

God uses language to which the recipient can relate. Speaking to the audience, yo.

Originally posted by Agerg
I'm not sure how "We proceed from positions of comfort at our paces." is a rebuttal to the point I made which led to it but I'll carry on regardless.
You say that Islam is based on an erroneous interpretation of OT concepts and history, and is thus quickly dispatched.

Dispatched by whom? You?? other Christians???

Of course you are going to see other ...[text shortened]... ppeared as contradictions were resolved by ceasing to question them however.[/b]

Dispatched by whom? You?? other Christians???
He was rejected out of hand by the folks he went to, which led to the spin-off that the religion became.

I'm sure you've heard people say that much your Christian heritage and symbolism was lifted from paganism too; but you will of course ignore these claims.
I cannot think of one which was lifted from another system. To which heritage and/or symbolism do you refer?

...there are plenty of alternatives which are well subscribed by people who fail to see as valid or well founded your own objections.
Agreed. This was partly answered by my line: We proceed from positions of comfort at our own paces." No one purposely leaves comfort, unless they have found the situation unsatisfactory to serve their greater aims. It's not a bad system, really. Except for one weak link: can they rely on their greater aims as the best impetus?

... merely the argument that inspite of it's origins there are plenty enough people who will buy into it in the same way that people will buy into Christianity, Islam or any other religions.
My point in scratching out his psychological difficulties was to flesh out the contrast between his pre-ministry life and that of the Lord Jesus Christ.

If not, precisely what evidential proof does one have for Bible God which would be generally accepted (ie: by people with no bias towards one religion or another)
Historical.

...please enlighten me as to how this is any worthy form of counter-rebuttal to my own.
Your original contention was along the lines that a great number of people do not subscribe to the dictates of the Bible, swear no allegiance thereof. My counter-argument was that the claim can be shown to be fallacious when applied to another human function.

To see this just invert the statement and say Christianity is not the default position of the World (minus a subset of the Western world).
[Bias disclosure: the following statements will necessarily reveal my predilections toward one type of thinking, in contrast to all others.]
I happen to believe that, despite all of its faults, Western thinking is the leading proponent of all the best that man has to offer. I find Eastern thought mostly the domain of retrogression, of a retarding of progress. This is not to say that nothing good whatsoever can be gleaned from Eastern sensibilities, but rather, that they have a tendency to either disallow open dialogue or--- in some form or another--- bury its head in the sand when faced with reality.

Not so with Western thought. It has been seeking for truth since first freed from the shackles of RCC and continues to this day, unafraid of open honest inquiry. From this mindset, the Reformation started. Sputtered? Certainly. But the fact remains, the screws have been put to the Scriptures time after time, and the Scriptures continue to emerge more than victorious, for any and all comers.

This is not a statement about such people being stupid (ie: their idiocy) btw; more it is a statement about sloppy reasoning.
I contend that the atheist refuses to consider the end of his own reasoning.

I still fail to see precisely how what you said previously appeared as contradictions were resolved by ceasing to question them however.
Because I was consistently proven wrong (with respect to my doubts) I finally resolved to just show me what to think.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH

...the fact remains, the screws have been put to the Scriptures time after time, and the Scriptures continue to emerge more than victorious, for any and all comers.

I contend that the atheist refuses to consider the end of his own reasoning.

To me, these two points stand out of your last post.

As to the scripture, I think most people nowadays have rejected the literal interpretation (particularly regards the OT) that you adhere to, even amongst believers. It is now considered reasonable and rational to reject third-party claims of the miraculous. Acceptance based on hearsay is generally considered neither reasonable nor rational. This doesn't seem to me to indicate that the scriptures emerge "more than victorious, for any and all comers".

I do not understand how you can contend that the atheist refuses to consider the end of his own reasoning. I agree that the atheist position is one based in faith, but it is a faith based on much more solid foundations than a small collection of ancient stories which may or may not have come down to us more or less intact from their original inscription.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]Dispatched by whom? You?? other Christians???
He was rejected out of hand by the folks he went to, which led to the spin-off that the religion became.

I'm sure you've heard people say that much your Christian heritage and symbolism was lifted from paganism too; but you will of course ignore these claims.
I cannot think of one which was l ...[text shortened]... proven wrong (with respect to my doubts) I finally resolved to just show me what to think.[/b]

Spin-off or not, Islam not rejected by the large numbers who subscribe to that faith. I want to say right now (to preempt any claims of hypocrisy on my part playing the numbers game); I'm not trying to establish any truth in this religion. Also, I am not making the argument that a greater number of people not having your faith makes your position less true.

I'm saying that arguments based on numbers, on topics which are independent of such numbers, carry no weight. Your Bible, your faith, etc... is a collection of statements about some god which exists and what it is alleged he did in the past and will do in the future. There are (as I understand it) no concepts which necessarily stand or fall based on numbers of adherents (or lack thereof) for your religion or any other. (If on the otherhand our argument was on *which religion do people think is best in the western world* (it isn't), then it would be correct to use numbers)

I'm sure you've heard people say that much your Christian heritage and symbolism was lifted from paganism too; but you will of course ignore these claims.
I cannot think of one which was lifted from another system. To which heritage and/or symbolism do you refer?
Well I made a point so I suppose I have to back it up (though as you're most surely aware I take little interest in scriptures or belief rituals of your or other systems of faith). it would be of little use here going to any Christian or atheist sites to gather the evidence so I'll provide a few wiki-links and direct your attention to the google key words: "Christianity + paganism"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deluge_myth
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_Paganism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paganism [see last paragraph last section]
I expect you to dismiss these as poor sources or fabrications etc...but since my point was merely *the existence* of allegations directed at your faith, it does my position no harm if you reject them.

You mention there is historical evidence. Historical evidence for writings about your faith? or more interestingly, historical evidence that we originated from Adam & Eve in the garden of Even (am I right you believe in this?), historical evidence that Jesus is the son of God, historical evidence that miracles occurred/ etc...
If all you have are second hand accounts and writings then this is not really historical evidence that I or (many) other non-Christians would accept. I'm sure I can go out and find historical writings about all sorts of other gods!

Your counter rebuttal to my preemptive rebuttal that "argumentum ad populum" is poor reasoning doesn't hit the spot here. I'm not making any claims of mutually exclusive truth about the internet (nor does anyone else)

On your final points you are of course entitled to your opinions on how much better is Western man than non-Western man (and apart from stating I don't share this opinion I care not to press you further on the issue). Your opinion however doesn't refute my statement that Christianity is not the default position of the world (minus some of the western world).
As for refusing to consider the end of my own reasoning, precisely what claims do I make other than your claims are not justified? I don't claim there exist no god(s), I don't claim there exists no supernatural realms...You'll see I make very few claims at all. How is my reasoning faulty (I acknowledge you think I should look to the side which shouts the loudest but as I've already explained this is not a valid form of argument).

Finally in what way were you proven wrong? In what way were you proven wrong in the seemingly blatant contradiction in the following:

"For I the LORD, I
change not... "

and yet almost immediately in Genesis we read of God changing His mind about man
?