The Reason Some Believe This Bible Nonsense Is...

[czyz]

I submit that if people were taught both sides of the argument regarding the bible(or any other religious text for that matter) that religion would likely be much more insignificant in our world.

Most of us were taught the tenets of the faith in places like Sunday School, zealous parents, or like myself, in a Catholic grade school. We were purposely not told the other side of the story such as there is no historical evidence for most of what the bible contains, that many of the stories in the bible have their genesis (pardon the pun) in religious practices that predate the Hebrews, the vast majority of errors in the bible regarding names and dates, and the fact that these events supposedly happened during the early Iron Age when man was ignorant, superstitious, fearful, and mostly illiterate.

There are volumes of information and historical evidence supporting the premise that the Torah, the Bible, and the Koran are mythological stories conveyed as a feeble attempt for early man to explain the natural world. It was man's early attempt at such a task and it shows by the silly stories contained within and the wicked teachings taught in some verses (i.e. slavery is acceptable, genocide of tribes which are enemies of the Hebrews, killing people for working on the sabbath, etc.)

A god or prime mover that created the universe may very well exist, and we very well could transition into a spiritual dimension upon expiring from the physical plane, but for us to speculate what may await us after death is like an amoeba with its own consciousness imagining what it would be like to be human.

I submit it is time to lay down the silly books and embrace the notion of morality and ethics in our world, and thus create the kind of society which benefits man and move our planet a little closer toward sanity.

[theopoesis]

If this God really existed then God would not be in the same boat. You and every other Christian, on the other hand, are mere mortals. Even if there are objective, absolute moral truths you don't know with certain knowledge what they are. We are all in the same boat.

I still think the differences are profound. Let's see if I can do a better job explaining them.

Neitzsche: There is no such thing as Truth.
Christianity: There is such a thing as Truth.

Neitzsche: Because there is no such thing as truth, efforts to "seek the truth" are really just power plays meant to control others through your point of view.
Christianity: There is such a thing as truth, but our finitude means we don't automatically have it. Therefore, "Seeking the truth" is a virtue as we try to conform our minds to the mind of God.

Neitzsche: Because there is no truth, there is no moral truth.
Christianity: There is moral truth, and we are obligated to try to discern it.

Neitzsche: Because there is no truth or morality, the recommended course of action is to use your power to liberate yourselves from the control of others. Bu an ubermensch.
Christianity: Because there is truth and morality, the purpose of human life is to find the truth and do the good, fulfilling the image of God.

Neitzsche: Because human thoughts and moral systems are inescapably shaped by history, the wise man tries to direct history so that it will produce ideas and morals conducive with his desires.
Christianity: Though human thoughts and moral systems are inescapably shaped by history, God has acted in history through sovereignty, the incarnation, and the church to allow truth to be able to emerge from the contingencies of history.

Neitzsche: Because there is no truth and no morality, the task of the philosopher is to expose the origins of our thought systems so that we can cast them down.
Christianity: Because there is truth and morality, the task of the philosopher is to discern the true and the good. This will be done in part through a robust account of revelation.

Neitzsche: Because there is no truth and morality, life has no purpose. We can make of it what we will.
Christianity: There is a purpose for this life, and if we find it and fulfill it, we will all be better off.

Does that help demonstrate the differences?

And there are no ways out of this swamp without claiming the existence of a Supreme Being?

Not that I've found. Of course I've not read everything to be read. But foundationalism or logical positivism seemed the strongest alternate options, and both seem to have collapsed.

What about pantheism, which Richard Dawkins calls "sexed-up atheism"?

I don't see how pantheism would help at all. Can you explain?

According to pantheism, everything is God. If God is good, and if God is true, then everything is good and everything is true. But that would mean that two contradictory propositions are both true. It would mean that killing a person and saving a person are both good. But if everything is good, if everything is true, then the words "good" and "true" cease to function. So maybe God isn't good or true, but if that's the case, how does the fact that everything is God help us human beings (as one part of God) know goodness or truth (presumably different parts of God?).

Similarly, pantheism usually is a type of religion that does not have a Personal God. Most philosophies of person, most psychology, most sociology affirms the idea that to be a person one must be in relation. If everything is God, nothing is not God, and so God has no relation to an other through which personality or identity can develop, through which communication can happen, etc. So if everything is God, God is not a person, and so can we really speak of God "knowing" the truth, or develop an account of God "revealing" that truth to us? Maybe so, but I don't see how. Maybe you can help.

I don't think you need religion to quest to seek the common good or to seek truth or virtue in politics. Again, I see Christians as in the same boat here as nontheists in the political arena.

What is the common good and how do you know it? Let's see if your answers hold up to Neitzsche's criticisms.

I don't claim to know anymore than the next guy what it is. It is something that needs to be hashed out using experience, analysis, and debate.

Ok, so you don't know what the common good is, and the next guy doesn't know what the common good is. If no one knows the common good, how do we act toward the unknown common good?

You seem to propose three solutions: experience, analysis, and debate. Ok, fine. Let's look at these three things:

So whose experiences count? Certain people have had terrible experiences which compel them to want to violently overthrow a particular regime. Is their experience right? Some experience the same regime as a blessing, a beneficial thing to their existence, and they will die to protect it. Is their experience right? Which experience really points to the common good? Some people's experiences tell them that republicans are on target, other people's experiences convince them that democrats are right. Whose experiences count? In truth, without some absolute standard by which to judge these experiences, all we have is one person's experiences opposed against another's. This is what Neitzsche points to: one opinion against another, no way to adjudicate, each having nothing to appeal to as a universal, and therefore each only able to advance his experience against another through the exertion of power.

How about analysis: What standard of analysis do we use? Is it Mills' utility? Whatever course of action results in the most happiness is the best course of action. Is it Rawls' maximin principle? Whatever course of action maximizes the outcome for those who will benefit the least from the proposal is the best course of action. Is it Pareto optimality? Any course of action in which one person cannot be made better off without making another worse off is a good course of action. Is it minority rights? Whatever course of action preserves the rights and safety of the minority groups the best is the best course of action. What happens when these different modes of analysis all result in different proposed outcomes? How do we decide which one is for the "common good"? Here again, Neitzsche's problem is intractable. Neitzsche says because there is no absolute standard of goodness or truth, we can't evaluate between different historically conditioned analytic systems, and so eventually one analytic system tries to gain power over another: who can get the most research funds? Who can support the campaigns of the most politicians to get their research heard and acted on? etc.

How about debate: What happens when sides can't reach an agreement? Should nothing be done until consensus is reached? By what agreed upon moral standards can we judge whether a debate is "Fair"? And isn't debate "violent" in a sense anyway, insofar as you are trying to coerce another to hold the position you want them to, when this position is at least originally against their own desires?

What scares me is that some think they are not on the same boat. That way lies theocracy.

All legislation ends up becoming similar to theocracy, though it may not be in the name of a God. Whenever the law requires anyone to do any action, or prohibits them from doing any action, then that law takes a moral stance in favor or against those actions. Whenever a government decides to pursue a course of action with a particular goal in mind, it decides what goal is worthy of pursuit among a number of possible goals. That is a value judgment, and in forcing society toward that goal, government is taking a moral stance.

The only difference between a theocracy and any other form of government (because theocracies can just as easily allow for freedom of religion, for example), is that theocracies admit that their legislation is motivated by a commitment to a particular ethical perspective, while other governments do not.

If it is delusional, then it is a type of delusion that most of humanity seems to be subject to. The feelings that you had seems to be a quirk of the human psyche, and your interpretation of them comes from your cultural background and beliefs. I used to be a Christian as well, but I was a particular type of Christian. I was part of The Church of Jesus of Latter-Day, in other words I was a Mormon. When I was on my mission I would testify that the fullness of the gospel of Jesus Christ has been resorted on the earth through the Prophet Joseph Smith. One of the things that was reveled through Joseph Smith is that the Godhead is not the standard Christian trinity, but three separate beings. Often when I did this I would feel like the Holy Spirit was there with me, confirming that this was true. So here we have two people with mutually exclusive beliefs feeling the same type of feelings. What do you make of this? The way I see this is that it indicates that such feelings are not a good way to evaluate the validity of truth claims.

There may be another way to look at things. It may be that the differences in our experiences are evidence that experiences should be compared with logical analysis. On the one hand, if our logic leads us to something absolutely contrary to our experience, we should doubt our logic. This is what I think we should do with Neitzsche. On the other hand, if our logic corrects what we have experienced, then we should rethink our experiences within a new framework. So, I think there are strong metaphysical reasons why the idea of a Trinity makes much more sense than tritheism. Based on this logic, I would want to question whether I experienced three Gods, or one God thrice over.

Oh, and I readily admit that experience is conditioned by culture, but at the same time, experience conditions culture.

I have never read Nietzsche, I am just responding to what you write. It seems like quite a leap to go from Nietzsche's descriptive analysis of the human condition to his prescriptive philosophy. And yet you seem to think this philosophy inevitable for consistant atheists. I find this strange.

I'm probably just not doing a good job describing Neitzsche. I'll try to do a better job. He's an interesting read, if you ever get the chance, and he will do much better presenting his own ideas than I am doing trying to summarize them in a few sentences.

Can salvation through Christ be attained after death?

I don't know for sure. The scriptures don't seem to teach that it can, and most of the Christian tradition would also avoid teaching the same. As I am unaware of any philosophical reason in favor of the possibility, I would never say it was definitely possible. But, fortunately for us all, I am not God. So who knows for sure.

What happens to those who don't obtain salvation?

Some form of eternal judgment.

What happens to those who live and die without ever hearing of Christianity? What happens to those who have heard about Christianity in a vague way, but don't think it is important to look into it because they feel that their life experiences support the religion/philosophy that they already have, similar to how you feel that your life experiences confirm Christianity? What happens to those who have studied Christianity in depth but are not convinced by it?

I hope that they are able to be saved, but it's only clear that those who confess are saved. There's lots of debate around this recently.

[Divine Insight]

What happens to those who live and die without ever hearing of Christianity? What happens to those who have heard about Christianity in a vague way, but don't think it is important to look into it because they feel that their life experiences support the religion/philosophy that they already have, similar to how you feel that your life experiences confirm Christianity? What happens to those who have studied Christianity in depth but are not convinced by it?

I hope that they are able to be saved, but it's only clear that those who confess are saved. There's lots of debate around this recently.

Should this even need to be debated?

Also, why should you need to hope that anyone could be saved?

It seems to me that if you believe in a totally righteous and trustworthy God, then you should have full confidence in anything this God does.

Therefore if this God condemns anyone it can only be the righteous and just thing to do. The person deserved to be condemned. And no decent person will ever "fall through the cracks" and be condemned by accident.

If I were a Christian I wouldn't be the slightest bit concerned about whether anyone could be saved or not. After all, I could only be concerned about such a things if I didn't trust God.

Only an untrustworthy God could condemn an undeserving person.

Therefore it makes absolutely no sense to worry about the damned. If God damned them, then surely it must have been the righteous and just thing to do and there is no need to even be bothered by it. After all, if God is cool with damning them, then shouldn't you be cool with it too?

It seems to me that Christians often worry that their God isn't trustworthy to always do the right thing. They seem to always be concerned that God will damn people who may not actually deserve to be damned.

[theopoesis]

I hope that they are able to be saved, but it's only clear that those who confess are saved. There's lots of debate around this recently.

Should this even need to be debated?

Also, why should you need to hope that anyone could be saved?

It seems to me that if you believe in a totally righteous and trustworthy God, then you should have full confidence in anything this God does.

Therefore if this God condemns anyone it can only be the righteous and just thing to do. The person deserved to be condemned. And no decent person will ever "fall through the cracks" and be condemned by accident.

If I were a Christian I wouldn't be the slightest bit concerned about whether anyone could be saved or not. After all, I could only be concerned about such a things if I didn't trust God.

Only an untrustworthy God could condemn an undeserving person.

Therefore it makes absolutely no sense to worry about the damned. If God damned them, then surely it must have been the righteous and just thing to do and there is no need to even be bothered by it. After all, if God is cool with damning them, then shouldn't you be cool with it too?

It seems to me that Christians often worry that their God isn't trustworthy to always do the right thing. They seem to always be concerned that God will damn people who may not actually deserve to be damned.

Maybe I'm really just hoping that most people aren't worthy of damning, not hoping that God is righteous. That's two different things. I don't doubt the latter, but sometimes I wonder about the former.

[Goat]

If this God really existed then God would not be in the same boat. You and every other Christian, on the other hand, are mere mortals. Even if there are objective, absolute moral truths you don't know with certain knowledge what they are. We are all in the same boat.

I still think the differences are profound. Let's see if I can do a better job explaining them.

Neitzsche: There is no such thing as Truth.
Christianity: There is such a thing as Truth.

And, to which I say 'I do not know what you mean by 'Truth'. What is the 'Truth' ^TM that you talk about? Can you define it in a manner that is clear, and universally accepted?

Until you do that.. neither the 'there is Truth', and there 'is no such thing as 'Truth' are null statements that do not semantic values.

Start there first.

[Divine Insight]

Maybe I'm really just hoping that most people aren't worthy of damning, not hoping that God is righteous. That's two different things. I don't doubt the latter, but sometimes I wonder about the former.

But again, if that's the best the creator can create you'd still basically be hoping that the creator isn't that inept.

Have you every wondered why the Biblical God is so bad at creating good souls?

According to Jesus only few will make it into the Kingdom of God. That means that the majority of souls this creator creates end up being damned.

It has always seemed to me that an all-perfect infinitely intelligent creator should be able to have a better success rate than this.

I've actually thought about this question quite a bit. If I were a creator who had to damn souls that didn't turn out good, and I wasn't able to create very many good souls, I question whether I would bother creating any souls at all until I could become better at it.

I even refused to procreate in this life because I couldn't guarantee the safety of my children. So I guess I wouldn't be creating souls either if I couldn't be sure that they would turn out good.

This is why I feel totally exempt to Christianity. Even if the stories of a creator God are true, I have demonstrated through my refusal to even create my own children that I would not lower myself to do what this Biblical God does.

If the Biblical God is truly intelligent then he would necessarily need to confess that I have higher moral values than he does. I wouldn't shoot craps with other people's souls. Even if I'm the one who is creating them.

But evidently the Biblical God does exactly that.

It's a religion based on a God that isn't even as moral as I am.

How could I possibly look up to a God like that?

He would do well to seek me out for moral consultation.

[theopoesis]

I still think the differences are profound. Let's see if I can do a better job explaining them.

Neitzsche: There is no such thing as Truth.
Christianity: There is such a thing as Truth.

And, to which I say 'I do not know what you mean by 'Truth'. What is the 'Truth' ^TM that you talk about? Can you define it in a manner that is clear, and universally accepted?

Until you do that.. neither the 'there is Truth', and there 'is no such thing as 'Truth' are null statements that do not semantic values.

Start there first.

(1) Is there anything in the world that is "universally accepted"?
(2) Get a dictionary, or read my above posts more closely. I don't have time for your word games.

[theopoesis]

Maybe I'm really just hoping that most people aren't worthy of damning, not hoping that God is righteous. That's two different things. I don't doubt the latter, but sometimes I wonder about the former.

But again, if that's the best the creator can create you'd still basically be hoping that the creator isn't that inept.

Have you every wondered why the Biblical God is so bad at creating good souls?

According to Jesus only few will make it into the Kingdom of God. That means that the majority of souls this creator creates end up being damned.

It has always seemed to me that an all-perfect infinitely intelligent creator should be able to have a better success rate than this.

I've actually thought about this question quite a bit. If I were a creator who had to damn souls that didn't turn out good, and I wasn't able to create very many good souls, I question whether I would bother creating any souls at all until I could become better at it.

I even refused to procreate in this life because I couldn't guarantee the safety of my children. So I guess I wouldn't be creating souls either if I couldn't be sure that they would turn out good.

This is why I feel totally exempt to Christianity. Even if the stories of a creator God are true, I have demonstrated through my refusal to even create my own children that I would not lower myself to do what this Biblical God does.

If the Biblical God is truly intelligent then he would necessarily need to confess that I have higher moral values than he does. I wouldn't shoot craps with other people's souls. Even if I'm the one who is creating them.

But evidently the Biblical God does exactly that.

It's a religion based on a God that isn't even as moral as I am.

How could I possibly look up to a God like that?

He would do well to seek me out for moral consultation.

As appealing as this prolonged ad hominem toward God is, I also don't see what this really has to do with the OP, or the main discussion I've been having. You are welcome to start a new thread, but I think I'm done with the red herrings for tonight, especially when the claim that bearing children is a moral evil is used to elevate yourself as a paradigm of morality. Unintelligible.

[Divine Insight]

As appealing as this prolonged ad hominem toward God is, I also don't see what this really has to do with the OP, or the main discussion I've been having. You are welcome to start a new thread, but I think I'm done with the red herrings for tonight, especially when the claim that bearing children is a moral evil is used to elevate yourself as a paradigm of morality. Unintelligible.

It's not an ad hominem toward any God. It's simply the truth. I would be on far higher moral ground that the fabled God of Hebrew mythology. That's a fact.

I also submit that this fact is in total harmony with the OP of this thread:

From the OP:

I submit it is time to lay down the silly books and embrace the notion of morality and ethics in our world, and thus create the kind of society which benefits man and move our planet a little closer toward sanity.

My personal morality is obviously far superior to these "silly books" (as the author of this thread puts it)

And that's my point.

Evidently I care more about souls than the Biblical God does.

Is that an ad hominem toward any real God?

I don't think so.

I think it's just an observation that the Hebrew myths can't possible be about any real God because that would require that God isn't even as moral as me, a mere mortal man.

If there exists a God, the Hebrew fables can't be the correct description of God.

It's that simple.

[keithprosser3]

If there exists a God, the Hebrew fables can't be the correct description of God.

I don't agree at all. We live in a world full of hate and mistrust, where might is right and where good people starve and die of painful cancers while bad people grow fat and die of old age in their beds. I think if there is a god, he is almost exactly as described in the Bible.

[keithprosser3]

My personal morality is obviously far superior to these "silly books" (as the author of this thread puts it)

So I'll state my belief. I don't believe in moral objectivity.

Are those statements compatible?