Religious arguments and analogies that really bother you

[Lion IRC]

The Essenes believed in Messiah. (As did Paul)
How do you reconcile the advent of Messiah with everything being predestined whether or not there is an awaited Messiah?

And if Pew has found that 26% of those who claim to believe in God do not believe in a personal God but think of God as an impersonal force, then that validates my contention that plenty of people can be sincerely mistaken about theology - including Calvin.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

The Essenes believed in Messiah. (As did Paul)
How do you reconcile the advent of Messiah with everything being predestined whether or not there is an awaited Messiah?

And if Pew has found that 26% of those who claim to believe in God do not believe in a personal God but think of God as an impersonal force, then that validates my contention that plenty of people can be sincerely mistaken about theology - including Calvin.

Theology is the study of stories about gods. No one can be mistaken about talking about stories.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

The Essenes believed in Messiah. (As did Paul)
How do you reconcile the advent of Messiah with everything being predestined whether or not there is an awaited Messiah?

And if Pew has found that 26% of those who claim to believe in God do not believe in a personal God but think of God as an impersonal force, then that validates my contention that plenty of people can be sincerely mistaken about theology - including Calvin.

For that matter, many people are not Christians. Moslems, Mormons, Scientology.

Yes, a lot of people are mistaken about a lot of things. Calvin, again, was taking the supposed revelations of Paul to their logical conclusion. No Paul, no Calvin. The excesses of Calvin are the excesses of Paul.

I doubt that 26% sat down and read Spinoza carefully. But that 26% seems to have realized that the theology of a personal God of the Bible or Quran doesn't work. And that allegorizing away all one doesn't like, in the end doesn't work either. One little startling thing in that Pew study is the large numbers of American Moslems and Hindus who have adopted an impersonal God. The Hindus I can see, as there is a long tradition of theological skepticism in Indian philosophy. But Moslems? As the problems of personal God theology become more apparent, that realization
that personal God theology is not viable seems to be gaining momentum among the educated public. Away with the problems of evil, omniscience and free will and the hideness of a loving, personal God who cares for us except not really.


Wanna be a successful cult leader? Write books working this out for those who can't believe in a personal God, but want a God and an impersonal god will do.

 

[Treedbear]

I would have thought "God is love" leaves the door open for atheists, sinners, slipping saints, honestly mistaken pagans, etc.

There is no banishment. See the parable of the prodigal son.
The father hasnt locked the gate barring any return. He is waiting with loving and open arms.
Its only if the prodigal son stubbornly refuses to return he banishes himself.

That's just it. There's only reason for a door because it creates a wall. That's what religions do.

 

[Lion IRC]

...Calvin, again, was taking the supposed revelations of Paul to their logical conclusion. No Paul, no Calvin. The excesses of Calvin are the excesses of Paul.

Well you and Calvin can interpret Paul your way and us non-Calvinists can take a different view.

I don't see excesses in Pauline writings and I don't see Pauline theology asserting that God creates wicked souls then sends Christ to offer salvation to them, (which those wicked souls don't deserve because they are wicked,) and in any case they can't freely accept salvation - it's forced on them. And the Calvinist post script is that some of those wicked souls (nobody knows how many) will be going to hell for being wicked where they will be punished for stuff that God programmed them to do.

I know this total depravity and predestination of everything and the illusion of free will stuff is in Calvin and Zwingli and Luther. But I can't find it in the bible. And I'm starting to suspect that you like Calvin because he helps you to poison the well.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

No, I pick on Calvin because Calvin demonstrates where Paul leads us, if you take the Bible seriously as revelation.
We have discussed the operative verses, Romans 8, God the Great Potter for example. It's there is you are willing to read carefully.

But then when you start cherry picking and allegorizing away what you like and don't like about revelation, that is in essences admitting that revelation doesn't work. You either have to ride with revelation, or hard evidence. If God was all powerful, and all good and loved us, the hideness of God is a logical problem.

If as Rene Descartes stated, a perfectly good God creates the rules and laws of the Universe, the whole concept gets even shakier. I am little inclined to let Paul off the hook and abandon those parts of revelation that don't work. Or to play the games of seeing the goal posts move when critically looking at the claims made about God.

Of course, others have had the same problem. Alfred North Whitehead invented process Theology to invent a God that avoided these issues, for example. Or one can follow Spinoza.

 

[Sarpedon]

It would only be logically incoherent if that same god said that its robots have free will and their actions are judged according to a moral standard. We would both question the truth of religious theology claim which had such an obvious internal contradiction. Robots being punished (sent to hell) for doing exactly what their programming compelled them to do while psycho god looks on and feigns love for them. That's logically absurd and flies in the face of canon. (The bible read as a whole)

Actually, it wouldn't be incoherent, as we have already established that this god is crazy and evil. Crazy and evil god can say whatever he wants, and perpetuate any cruelty he wants.

The only religion I know of that has reconciled the reality of this unhappy world with the idea of a perfect and good god (solving the problem of evil, in other words) was Gnosticism, which gave the idea that the universe was created involuntarily, and our world was shaped by a flawed and evil sub-god.

 

[DrZoidberg]

It would only be logically incoherent if that same god said that its robots have free will and their actions are judged according to a moral standard. We would both question the truth of religious theology claim which had such an obvious internal contradiction. Robots being punished (sent to hell) for doing exactly what their programming compelled them to do while psycho god looks on and feigns love for them. That's logically absurd and flies in the face of canon. (The bible read as a whole)

Actually, it wouldn't be incoherent, as we have already established that this god is crazy and evil. Crazy and evil god can say whatever he wants, and perpetuate any cruelty he wants.

The only religion I know of that has reconciled the reality of this unhappy world with the idea of a perfect and good god (solving the problem of evil, in other words) was Gnosticism, which gave the idea that the universe was created involuntarily, and our world was shaped by a flawed and evil sub-god.

Also the free will debate is a quagmire. The truth is that the phrase "free will" is meaningless. God can give us it all it wants, but it still doesn't mean anything

 

[LordKiran]

Actually, it wouldn't be incoherent, as we have already established that this god is crazy and evil. Crazy and evil god can say whatever he wants, and perpetuate any cruelty he wants.

The only religion I know of that has reconciled the reality of this unhappy world with the idea of a perfect and good god (solving the problem of evil, in other words) was Gnosticism, which gave the idea that the universe was created involuntarily, and our world was shaped by a flawed and evil sub-god.

Also the free will debate is a quagmire. The truth is that the phrase "free will" is meaningless. God can give us it all it wants, but it still doesn't mean anything

Doesn't free will imply that there was a path we are meant to go down but are free to deny? I'm pretty sure that's what people mean when they say it. What that path may or may not be is another can of worms entirely though.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Also the free will debate is a quagmire. The truth is that the phrase "free will" is meaningless. God can give us it all it wants, but it still doesn't mean anything

Doesn't free will imply that there was a path we are meant to go down but are free to deny? I'm pretty sure that's what people mean when they say it. What that path may or may not be is another can of worms entirely though.

It's worse than that. What is free? From what is it free? In what way is it free? It's just a phrase that sounds profound without actually being it. All philosophers have known this since the 18'th century. It died with Descartes. Which is why they haven't discussed it since then. Whenever modern philosophers say they're discussing free will they in reality have cleverly disguised another (actually interesting) issue within it. Which is why they start by defining it, (ie defining what is free, from what it is free and in what way it is free). But each set of definitions belong to an entirely different conceptual universe. So they're not really having a debate or settling the issue. The only reason they at all claim they're discussing free will is because it's a phrase that helps them get attention and sell books. It's a phrase that works really well on philosophical illiterates. Which is most people. So they keep doing it.

Nah, the term free will is truly empty. The reason why we care so much about it is that we have inherited Roman jurisprudence as a basis for our criminal justice system, and the terminology that goes with it. They (and we) start by asserting free will. This is a purely legal technical term which has little to do with philosophy. It's a pragmatic compromise that just solves so much when trying to work out who is to blame. Any alternative would be a legal nightmare allowing cases to drag on indefinitely. The insanity defense was used even in the ancient world. Yup, lawyers have been full of shit in every age.

It's pretty obvious that the Christian idea of free will is inherited from Roman jurisprudence. Because they use it in the same way. But when lifted from law to philosophy it just becomes dumb.

 

[Elixir]

What REALLY bugs me...

"God says" (followed by a quote from a compilation of ignorant shepherds' tales.)

Who the fuck told you your favorite book was written by a disembodied super-being? I'd like to slap 'em around some, but just as they were raised to believe stupid shit, I was raised to tolerate people who believe stupid shit. Damn my parents!

 

[Lion IRC]

The Genetic Fallacy is the most general fallacy of irrelevancy involving the origins or history of an idea. It is fallacious to either endorse or condemn an idea based on its past—rather than on its present—merits or demerits, unless its past in some way affects its present value.

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/genefall.html

 

[Lion IRC]

Writing was invented by primitive people therefore writing is stupid.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Writing was invented by primitive people therefore writing is stupid.

That's not what he is saying. He's saying that we have no reason to believe the Bible was written/guided/compiled/edited/beamed/conjured up by God. This would be true even if God would be real and actually really exist, in the real way. Therefore claiming to know what God wants based on the Bible is making unfounded assumptions.

The connection between God and the Bible is habitually skimmed over by Christians as if it's unnecessary to establish. The problem is of course that it is necessary.

 

[Lion IRC]

We have no reason?
Who is "we"?

 

[DrZoidberg]

We have no reason?
Who is "we"?

Entities who use evidence and logic to establish what is true. What arguments do you have to take the Bible seriously? What makes you think that the Bible isn't 100% just made up by one or more humans? Even if some of it is true, how do you know all of it is true? Could some, or all of it be misunderstanding? So even if God is real and did in some way guide the authors we still don't know if it's true. The biggest problem with the Bible is that it belongs to a type of literature that was the most popular to write and read in the antique world. The Bible (versio vulgata) is just yet another one in the pile. What makes the Bible special? The answer is nothing. They're all interchangeable, but with radically different types of God. Early Christian Bibles couldn't even agree on how many God's there are. Just wanting something to be true real bad isn't evidence of anything. Having blind faith is nothing to be proud about.

 

[Lion IRC]

...The connection between God and the Bible is habitually skimmed over by Christians as if it's unnecessary to establish. The problem is of course that it is necessary.

I would say that the connectedness or otherwise has preoccupied Christianty since the beginning

Look how far we have come from..."look at all those wars fought in the name of religion"
to..."The connection between God and the Bible is habitually skimmed over."

Believe me, Christian denominations do not skim over this issue.

Take a look at Foxe's Book Of Martyrs and get back to me.

 

[DrZoidberg]

...The connection between God and the Bible is habitually skimmed over by Christians as if it's unnecessary to establish. The problem is of course that it is necessary.

I would say that the connectedness or otherwise has preoccupied Christianty since the beginning

Look how far we have come from..."look at all those wars fought in the name of religion"
to..."The connection between God and the Bible is habitually skimmed over."

Believe me, Christian denominations do not skim over this issue.

Take a look at Foxe's Book Of Martyrs and get back to me.

View attachment 9344

No, it hasn't. If it had there would have been no wars. Everybody would have been open, honest and humble about the fact that everybody is just guessing and nobody has a clue. Nobody would fight for their Truth, because everybody would accept that there is no one single truth that is knowable.

The moment one person says that I know what is correct and I'm willing to fight for it, then their world view is broken and wrong. But above all, they've skimmed over the part regarding how they can know that their holy book is true.

I'm not saying all religious people are stupid. I've read books by plenty of intelligent theists. The difference lies in that the intelligent theists understand how metaphor works. They understand that all religions equivalent and they're at best general guides for life, and may perhaps give helpful small hints. At no point do they say that their sacred thing is in any way correct while other religious people have gotten it all wrong. You will never find an intelligent fundamentalist.

 

[tantric]

i actually once had an arguement with the lord god jehovah himself....

me and my boo were at a club, flipping on e and dxm, but we wanted to smoke a j. we went out and found this homeless crackhead and offered to smoke him out if he knew a safe space. he did and we went. he and i got to talking about doing good deeds. he contended that such was useless unless done in the name of god. he got strident. then he got *larger*. i whispered to boo, "you know who he really is, right" boo nodded and looked scared. then, dammit, the crackhead/god got mfing BACKLIT. fortunately, i had a bad ankle and was walking with a cane, so a stabbed the loud mouth asshat in the solar plexus and we both ran like the devil himself was on our tails. true story.

 

[Atheos]

It's worse than that. What is free? From what is it free? In what way is it free? It's just a phrase that sounds profound without actually being it. All philosophers have known this since the 18'th century. It died with Descartes. Which is why they haven't discussed it since then. Whenever modern philosophers say they're discussing free will they in reality have cleverly disguised another (actually interesting) issue within it. Which is why they start by defining it, (ie defining what is free, from what it is free and in what way it is free). But each set of definitions belong to an entirely different conceptual universe. So they're not really having a debate or settling the issue. The only reason they at all claim they're discussing free will is because it's a phrase that helps them get attention and sell books. It's a phrase that works really well on philosophical illiterates. Which is most people. So they keep doing it.

<snip>

Not being well versed in Descartes and the philosophy gang from the 18th century I don't know that I've been exposed to this knowledge all these folks have had for all this time. Guess I fall into that category described as "most people," the philosophically illiterate.

But in my lay opinion it seems fairly straightforward. Free will would be that condition in which every life form on this planet capable of abstract thought evaluates circumstances and makes decisions. Predestination would be that condition in which this evaluation and decision making process is already programmed in by an agent (which could be sentient or non-sentient).

As the predestinationalist said after falling down a flight of stairs, "Whew, I'm sure glad that's over with."

You will never find an intelligent fundamentalist.

Never say never.