Believers: What Would You Do?

[forlife]

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Wow. Way to completely jump down into the mud, take aim at a group, and go completely off topic. Poo flinging and seeing what would stick seems to have made it’s way into this thread, after all. Looks like I got out while the thread still had a shred of respectability and honesty to it. I’d meant to at least follow along and see if anyone had anything new to say about the, you know, topic. What a fool I was. Just retitle the thread “Challenging Christians with biblical passages, for the umpteenth time, when the original topic doesn’t seem to have any traction.” Perhaps it’s too long? Time to mentally file this one away as even a no-reader. Yeesh.[/quote]

Yep, it’s back to the “Gotcha” game with God. Forlife playing Monty Hall in “Let’s Make a Deal.” Jabbing and poking, disingenuous at best with his futile attempts to justify turning his back on his Creator. Professing himself to be wise he became a fool.[/quote]

I readily admit to being a fool.

Not disingenuous though. As I said earlier in the thread, I’m honest about what I post here. I’m doing my best to listen to other views, and share my own views, sans judgment.

[Vires_Eternus]

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
…Just retitle the thread “Challenging Christians with biblical passages, for the umpteenth time, when the original topic doesn’t seem to have any traction.”…

[/quote]

We see this all the time here. It’s downright commonplace. And rather hum-drum.
[/quote]

But so often the Christians use biblical passages to support their views… I’d have to read back through as I’m not sure who started doing which first. I’m not entirely sure the Christians can claim the high ground though.

Sorry for my part. (Really) But the points I made were to emphasize the difference between the relatively certain and absolute take on morality believers often take, with what ‘appears’ to be the contextual take of the G-d who authored/inspired the scriptures.

I didn’t think they were out of context, but I’ve certainly been wrong before.

[BlakeAJackson]

[quote]forlife wrote:
It’s not an abstract thought experiment, I’m genuinely interested in knowing how that realization would affect the way you treat people.

I know how the belief affected my own perceptions and my own behavior, but I’m curious how it would affect yours.

For myself, I realized that not believing in a god didn’t translate to feeling free to do whatever I want, as long as I could get away with it. I still valued honesty, treating others with respect, etc.

How would it affect you? Are your values 100% dependent on your belief in god and the afterlife, and would you toss away all of those values if you realized there is no god or afterlife? Why or why not?[/quote]

This is really kind of funny to me. Why is it that you think that belief in God/heaven and hell is the only reason to be good as defined by Christianity? This is a very childish notion, no offense meant, but it is like you only don’t/do something because you parents will punish you. At some point you have to become an adult and that fear that has motivated your behavior is unnecessary. If this transition does not occur then you would simply transition into a â??don’t get caughtâ?? mentality I would suspect. Values maybe partially instilled through modeling by others in your society, but for the individual they only have as much meaning as the individual is willing to place in them.

Religion as defined by Tolstoy is man’s attempt to understand his relationship to the universe. Under his explanation everyone is attempting to answer this question and therefore is religious and acknowledges something greater, even atheist. Otherwise as you and others are concluding there would simply be no reason to continue living. From this question we derive our interactions with the universe and what they mean. The most basic conclusion of which is do unto others as you would have them do unto you, and that all men are equal.

These are fundamental and universal truths that all men regardless of religion or lack there of, can understand and accept. It is possible to have morality without a church but it is not possible to have a church without morality.

[Vires_Eternus]

[quote]BlakeAJackson wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
It’s not an abstract thought experiment, I’m genuinely interested in knowing how that realization would affect the way you treat people.

I know how the belief affected my own perceptions and my own behavior, but I’m curious how it would affect yours.

For myself, I realized that not believing in a god didn’t translate to feeling free to do whatever I want, as long as I could get away with it. I still valued honesty, treating others with respect, etc.

How would it affect you? Are your values 100% dependent on your belief in god and the afterlife, and would you toss away all of those values if you realized there is no god or afterlife? Why or why not?[/quote]

This is really kind of funny to me. Why is it that you think that belief in God/heaven and hell is the only reason to be good as defined by Christianity? This is a very childish notion, no offense meant, but it is like you only don’t/do something because you parents will punish you. At some point you have to become an adult and that fear that has motivated your behavior is unnecessary. If this transition does not occur then you would simply transition into a â??don’t get caughtâ?? mentality I would suspect. Values maybe partially instilled through modeling by others in your society, but for the individual they only have as much meaning as the individual is willing to place in them.

Religion as defined by Tolstoy is man’s attempt to understand his relationship to the universe. Under his explanation everyone is attempting to answer this question and therefore is religious and acknowledges something greater, even atheist. Otherwise as you and others are concluding there would simply be no reason to continue living. From this question we derive our interactions with the universe and what they mean. The most basic conclusion of which is do unto others as you would have them do unto you, and that all men are equal.

These are fundamental and universal truths that all men regardless of religion or lack there of, can understand and accept. It is possible to have morality without a church but it is not possible to have a church without morality.

[/quote]

Interesting take. Sounds like you’ve read your fair share of Thomas Paine as well.

[forlife]

[quote]BlakeAJackson wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
It’s not an abstract thought experiment, I’m genuinely interested in knowing how that realization would affect the way you treat people.

I know how the belief affected my own perceptions and my own behavior, but I’m curious how it would affect yours.

For myself, I realized that not believing in a god didn’t translate to feeling free to do whatever I want, as long as I could get away with it. I still valued honesty, treating others with respect, etc.

How would it affect you? Are your values 100% dependent on your belief in god and the afterlife, and would you toss away all of those values if you realized there is no god or afterlife? Why or why not?[/quote]

This is really kind of funny to me. Why is it that you think that belief in God/heaven and hell is the only reason to be good as defined by Christianity? This is a very childish notion, no offense meant, but it is like you only don’t/do something because you parents will punish you. At some point you have to become an adult and that fear that has motivated your behavior is unnecessary. If this transition does not occur then you would simply transition into a â??don’t get caughtâ?? mentality I would suspect. Values maybe partially instilled through modeling by others in your society, but for the individual they only have as much meaning as the individual is willing to place in them.

Religion as defined by Tolstoy is man’s attempt to understand his relationship to the universe. Under his explanation everyone is attempting to answer this question and therefore is religious and acknowledges something greater, even atheist. Otherwise as you and others are concluding there would simply be no reason to continue living. From this question we derive our interactions with the universe and what they mean. The most basic conclusion of which is do unto others as you would have them do unto you, and that all men are equal.

These are fundamental and universal truths that all men regardless of religion or lack there of, can understand and accept. It is possible to have morality without a church but it is not possible to have a church without morality.

[/quote]

I agree that religion is man’s search for meaning in a vast, mysterious, beautiful, frightening universe. However, religion being traditionally superstitious, I don’t believe it is the only or even the best way to discover that meaning. Certainly people can find meaning in and out of religion.

[BlakeAJackson]

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]BlakeAJackson wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
It’s not an abstract thought experiment, I’m genuinely interested in knowing how that realization would affect the way you treat people.

I know how the belief affected my own perceptions and my own behavior, but I’m curious how it would affect yours.

For myself, I realized that not believing in a god didn’t translate to feeling free to do whatever I want, as long as I could get away with it. I still valued honesty, treating others with respect, etc.

How would it affect you? Are your values 100% dependent on your belief in god and the afterlife, and would you toss away all of those values if you realized there is no god or afterlife? Why or why not?[/quote]

This is really kind of funny to me. Why is it that you think that belief in God/heaven and hell is the only reason to be good as defined by Christianity? This is a very childish notion, no offense meant, but it is like you only don’t/do something because you parents will punish you. At some point you have to become an adult and that fear that has motivated your behavior is unnecessary. If this transition does not occur then you would simply transition into a Ã?¢??don’t get caughtÃ?¢?? mentality I would suspect. Values maybe partially instilled through modeling by others in your society, but for the individual they only have as much meaning as the individual is willing to place in them.

Religion as defined by Tolstoy is man’s attempt to understand his relationship to the universe. Under his explanation everyone is attempting to answer this question and therefore is religious and acknowledges something greater, even atheist. Otherwise as you and others are concluding there would simply be no reason to continue living. From this question we derive our interactions with the universe and what they mean. The most basic conclusion of which is do unto others as you would have them do unto you, and that all men are equal.

These are fundamental and universal truths that all men regardless of religion or lack there of, can understand and accept. It is possible to have morality without a church but it is not possible to have a church without morality.

[/quote]

I agree that religion is man’s search for meaning in a vast, mysterious, beautiful, frightening universe. However, religion being traditionally superstitious, I don’t believe it is the only or even the best way to discover that meaning. Certainly people can find meaning in and out of religion.[/quote]

Religion as defined by Tolstoy is not an organization but exactly that search independent of any building, books, doctrine, ect. just to clarify. As for which is better organized or not I know where I stand, and it is irrelevant to everyone else as much as their beliefs are to me as long as they don’t try and force them down my throat. Atheist included.

[BlakeAJackson]

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]BlakeAJackson wrote:

…as long as they don’t try and force them down my throat…

[/quote]

Are you willing to reciprocate?
[/quote]
Yes I agree. I do realize it is often hard to tell where the first stone is thrown from though… I can guarantee you wont ever find me protesting funerals of dead soldiers because G-d hates Fags, or trying to convert anyone to or away from anything. I do enjoy talking about this stuff with others though, even when they are in complete and utter disagreement with me.

[BlakeAJackson]

Yes, and I know that as I have gotten older I am getting even better at practicing this myself.

[jasmincar]

Ok I havent read the 12 pages, but here is my take.

I dont participate in any organized religion, and I dont believe in a rewarding god or that I will be judged for what I did in my life.Also as a matter of fact I think you guys are burned out.

So why do I dont steal, deceive, kill or rape people. What is this morale and distaste for ugly inside me. Someone explain.

[pat]

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

Of course I’m agnostic about rape, just like you are. [/quote]

So, faith in god is agnosticism?[/quote]

The existence or nonexistence of a god is a physical, not a metaphysical question. As such, it is categorically true or false. Either a supernatural being created the universe or he didn’t. There is no middle ground on this question. It is an empirical issue, not an issue of faith.

However, values, beliefs, emotions, perceptions, etc. are metaphysical. They don’t objectively exist in the universe, and aren’t subject to empirical validation.[/quote]

Existence itself is a metaphysical question. What exists metaphysically, is more real and more provable than anything physical. If you lost all your faculties and perceptions you would have awareness of only the metaphysical.
The physical depends on the metaphysical for it’s existence, but no the other way around…
We only know about physical objects through errored perception.[/quote]

I agree that existence itself is a metaphysical question.

I’m not sure what you mean when you say metaphysical objects are more real and more provable than physical objects. Can you give me an example?[/quote]

They are more real because they require reason, not observation to know they exist. Observations may hint to their existence, but you cannot know they exist with out deductive reasoning. If a deductive argument is true, it’s truth is not relative it exists in all realms, all realities all possible worlds. Inductive reasoning infers in the contexts of what we think we know. That’s why metaphysics is ‘more real’ because if a deductive argument is true, it’s true no matter what. And inductive argument is only true in the context in which is was derived.
I like to turn to math because it is metaphysics / deductive reasoning that most people are familiar with. Math equations are always true no matter what. ‘Flamingo’s stand on one leg’ is not always true no matter what.

[pat]

[quote]Vires Eternus wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Vires Eternus wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Vires Eternus wrote:

On another occasion men from the tribe of Benjamin raped a prophet’s wife to death with relative impunity. When the prophet solicited the help of the other tribes of Israel to exact justice, (By chopping up his dead wife’s corpse and sending the pieces abroad to the chieftains of the other tribes no less) G-d eventually intervenes on behalf of the Benjaminites, out of compassion for the fact that the birth rate of females within their tribe had been statistically VERY low, and they in trying to observe G-d’s express commandment to marry within their tribe, had been largely ‘doing without’.
[/quote]

By the way my friend, you hopelessly mutilated this story. I don’t know what monastery you studied in but if I were your dad I’d ask, even sue, to get my tuition back. You should be ashamed of yourself as well for not working hard enough and reading your Playboy (for the articles) instead of studying your Bible.

The man was not a prophet.

The cut up woman was not his wife.

God actually intervened on behalf of the Israelites not the Benjamites, exacting justice.

You screwed up the account about the wives that were LATER given to the Benjamites too.

Face it, bud, you aint qualified enough to come in here and shoot from the hip. You’re making yourself look bad. Clean up your act.[/quote]

OK arguably I had to cut shit down considerably, and yes since going the way i’ve chosen, it’s been a long old time since I’ve reviewed this tale. But the gist is true, and you avoid the obvious issue, as my dad a church elder and a hell of a man does as well. You can’t explain G-d’s apparent inconsistencies, so you try to make excuses for him drawn from the immediate or wider context of scripture. [/quote]

Wow, that was an absolute massacre of the story! If you knew anything about the story what is significant about it, is the foreshadowing of the apostles in particular Judas and how he turned toward evil and how he was replaced.[/quote]

Where is that explained? In the adjacent scriptures? Or did bible scholars, after the fact, make the determination that it was a ‘foreshadow’ of future events?[/quote]

First read the actual story…Judges chapeters 19, 20 and 21. And it wasn’t a predictiion per se, just a parallel. The tribe of Benjamen betrayed God, they were decimated so that then there were 11 tribes left essentially. After, the other tribes of Israel were compelled to restore the tribe of Benjamen and privide them wives so that the 12th tribe would be restored.

12 apostles, on betrayed God. Post resurrection and Matthias was chosen to replace Judas so that there would be 12. I could go on, but this should be sufficient to illustrate the point…

[forlife]

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

Of course I’m agnostic about rape, just like you are. [/quote]

So, faith in god is agnosticism?[/quote]

The existence or nonexistence of a god is a physical, not a metaphysical question. As such, it is categorically true or false. Either a supernatural being created the universe or he didn’t. There is no middle ground on this question. It is an empirical issue, not an issue of faith.

However, values, beliefs, emotions, perceptions, etc. are metaphysical. They don’t objectively exist in the universe, and aren’t subject to empirical validation.[/quote]

Existence itself is a metaphysical question. What exists metaphysically, is more real and more provable than anything physical. If you lost all your faculties and perceptions you would have awareness of only the metaphysical.
The physical depends on the metaphysical for it’s existence, but no the other way around…
We only know about physical objects through errored perception.[/quote]

I agree that existence itself is a metaphysical question.

I’m not sure what you mean when you say metaphysical objects are more real and more provable than physical objects. Can you give me an example?[/quote]

They are more real because they require reason, not observation to know they exist. Observations may hint to their existence, but you cannot know they exist with out deductive reasoning. If a deductive argument is true, it’s truth is not relative it exists in all realms, all realities all possible worlds. Inductive reasoning infers in the contexts of what we think we know. That’s why metaphysics is ‘more real’ because if a deductive argument is true, it’s true no matter what. And inductive argument is only true in the context in which is was derived.
I like to turn to math because it is metaphysics / deductive reasoning that most people are familiar with. Math equations are always true no matter what. ‘Flamingo’s stand on one leg’ is not always true no matter what.
[/quote]

I see what you’re saying, but on the other hand, deductive reasoning is only as real as the premises on which it is based. There’s no such thing as premise-free logic, hence all knowledge is ultimately unprovable.

[pat]

[quote]NAUn wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

They claim morality is absolute and noncontextual, only to rationalize cases like you describe as exceptions to the rule. [/quote]

You apparently flunked your Old Testament courses too.
[/quote]

Do you believe the children of Adam and Eve had sex with one another?[/quote]

Yes, long, long, long before:

1. It was forbidden by God.

2. Sex of that type started causing harmful genetic mutations.

[/quote]

So incest was ok in a certain situation (one may say context), but then it was forbidden. It sounds like you are making the case for moral relativism as it pertains to incest. But rape is clearly still absolutely evil right?

I have a question for you. If it is possible that God has changed his stance on incest before, is it possible that in the future (say perhaps if we find a way to stop the harmful genetic mutations you mentioned) that God might change his stance on incest once again? What if it’s crucial for the existence of the human species?
[/quote]

St Paul answers your question. In the beginning they did not have the law and were therefore not bound by it. As they received the law they were bound by it.

[pat]

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

Of course I’m agnostic about rape, just like you are. [/quote]

So, faith in god is agnosticism?[/quote]

The existence or nonexistence of a god is a physical, not a metaphysical question. As such, it is categorically true or false. Either a supernatural being created the universe or he didn’t. There is no middle ground on this question. It is an empirical issue, not an issue of faith.

However, values, beliefs, emotions, perceptions, etc. are metaphysical. They don’t objectively exist in the universe, and aren’t subject to empirical validation.[/quote]

Existence itself is a metaphysical question. What exists metaphysically, is more real and more provable than anything physical. If you lost all your faculties and perceptions you would have awareness of only the metaphysical.
The physical depends on the metaphysical for it’s existence, but no the other way around…
We only know about physical objects through errored perception.[/quote]

I agree that existence itself is a metaphysical question.

I’m not sure what you mean when you say metaphysical objects are more real and more provable than physical objects. Can you give me an example?[/quote]

They are more real because they require reason, not observation to know they exist. Observations may hint to their existence, but you cannot know they exist with out deductive reasoning. If a deductive argument is true, it’s truth is not relative it exists in all realms, all realities all possible worlds. Inductive reasoning infers in the contexts of what we think we know. That’s why metaphysics is ‘more real’ because if a deductive argument is true, it’s true no matter what. And inductive argument is only true in the context in which is was derived.
I like to turn to math because it is metaphysics / deductive reasoning that most people are familiar with. Math equations are always true no matter what. ‘Flamingo’s stand on one leg’ is not always true no matter what.
[/quote]

I see what you’re saying, but on the other hand, deductive reasoning is only as real as the premises on which it is based. There’s no such thing as premise-free logic, hence all knowledge is ultimately unprovable.[/quote]

Not really. Premises are required for an argument to be true, but to say that all premises are unprovable able is not true. Again, 2+2=4. Both 2’s are true therefore they equal 4.
Some premises are true some are more elusive as to their validity, but it’s not all one way or the other.

It boils down to this, see #3:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plato-metaphysics/#3

[forlife]

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]NAUn wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

They claim morality is absolute and noncontextual, only to rationalize cases like you describe as exceptions to the rule. [/quote]

You apparently flunked your Old Testament courses too.
[/quote]

Do you believe the children of Adam and Eve had sex with one another?[/quote]

Yes, long, long, long before:

1. It was forbidden by God.

2. Sex of that type started causing harmful genetic mutations.

[/quote]

So incest was ok in a certain situation (one may say context), but then it was forbidden. It sounds like you are making the case for moral relativism as it pertains to incest. But rape is clearly still absolutely evil right?

I have a question for you. If it is possible that God has changed his stance on incest before, is it possible that in the future (say perhaps if we find a way to stop the harmful genetic mutations you mentioned) that God might change his stance on incest once again? What if it’s crucial for the existence of the human species?
[/quote]

St Paul answers your question. In the beginning they did not have the law and were therefore not bound by it. As they received the law they were bound by it. [/quote]

But that begs the question, why didn’t god give them the law in the first place? Why tell them one thing, then change it to something else later?

More importantly, for me at least, why did god behave according to different moral standards himself? I can’t imagine the god of the new testament commanding people to bash the heads of infants against the wall.