Religion Catch All

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
101

Nothing formal. It is an interest of mine though. I have studied logic a bit, and spent some time with the formal logical fallacies.

Yep. That is the nature of these type of discussions. I do try to be honest about debate. I try not to get someone in a gotcha on something you just mistyped. I let people clarify and do not hold them to a specific block of text.

I don’t specifically believe there is no God. I just don’t see any proof to believe in one. What are the reasons (or argument) why you believe it is justified to believe in one? Why do you specifically believe the Christian God?

I can discuss this too. I have seen a few people describe their interpretations that are different than my own. I still find them all immoral (unless you go the @sloth route of what God does is moral no matter how it seems to us).

1 Like
102

Yes, he repented and accepted Jesus as his savior before getting killed in prison.

Agree. However, it is reasonable to discuss whether or not this or that theory on what happens after death makes sense or not.

103

Yep if it was true repentance of the heart.

104

There are some things you just can’t know for sure.

105

Nope. Eccl 9:5,6 would indicate that he is not.
Ps 37:10,11 would indicate the Bible’s message is not really about heaven. Especially when coupled with Matt 6:9,10, which quite clearly is Jesus talking about something for the Earth.
James 2:14-18 explains quite clearly the problem with the idea that your faith will save you.
What the Bible says often has little to do with what religions teach.
Rom 6:23 shows that sins are covered by dying.

106

This an example of pat’s stupidity. He can’t come up with an argument so he hurls insults. I guess that’s the christian thing to do.

Pat, for those who don’t know, is not well educated but doesn’t make up for it by being intelligent.

107

Agree. IMO, that isn’t justification to believe though.

There are parts of the Bible that indicate if he repents of his sins, asks God for salvation, that he would be admitted into heaven. The thief on the cross next to Jesus is a pretty good example of this.

108

No. We don’t have an original text written by Moses. Moses probably never existed.

109

Okay, so @Sloth is referring to what ultimately boils down to the ‘Moral argument for the existence of God’. The crux of which is that God is the ‘law’ giver (not in the biblical sense), which means He is the ultimate source from which objective morality is derived which in turn means that anything God does is moral by default. However, that’s my interpretation of what @sloth is saying, it’s backed up by the Catechism and has its founding in the teaching of early Church fathers clarified by St. Thomas Aquinas and later by Kant. (Yes, I am dead-naming). But take Sloth’s word for what he is saying, not mine, to be clear.

So looking at Num 5:16-28, what it is ultimately is a purity test, one that unless there is direct divine intervention, would never actually work. I think that may have been by design to deal with overly-jealous husbands or those looking for an excuse to get away from their nagging wives.

So the result of this purity test is stated here:
" he water that brings the curse shall enter into her and cause bitter pain, and her womb shall swell, and her thigh shall fall away, and the woman shall become a curse among her people.
But if the woman has not defiled herself and is clean, then she shall be free and shall conceive children."
It does not say specifically it would end a current pregnancy, necessarily, though the swollen womb and great pain may indicate such a thing is possible, but it does not say it will terminate a current pregnancy outright. So, it says the bitterwater (whatever that was) would pass into her bowls and cause her womb to swell. Perhaps to mean she would have a raging case of the runs, we don’t actually know. It would also, by means of curse, cause her thigh to fall away… That’s one heavy duty curse…
So in the absence of those things happening, the woman passes this purity test and she can go on having babies and living life. If she fails, then she will be cursed to being barren and her thigh hanging off like a half eaten chicken wing. Seems reasonable that no guy would care to fuck a woman with a fucked up thigh…
As far as the bitterwater, well we don’t know what that is. It indicates vaguely that grain is involved, causing it’s bitterness, but it also has to be survivable lest the innocent suffer with the rest.
It is possible, that some priests made a vile concoction that is in fact an abortifacient, but that’s outside the letter of the law.
So, based on the scripture, it’s not abundantly clear that God was recommending abortion in the failure of the purity test. There is no indication to suggest that’s what it was for. Just a test, requiring divine intervention, to indicate whether or not your wife is a lying, cheating whore.
And in the case where the curse is in fact, invoked. It’s possible that a child en utero is miscarried, but if the priest is following the written prescription, nothing of man’s own action should cause it, it would be an act of God.
That’s why it’s not a passage promoting or allowing abortion.

(Deuteronomy 28:37; Jeremiah 24:9; Jeremiah 29:18; Jeremiah 29:22; Jeremiah 42:18; Jeremiah 44:12; Zechariah 8:13 - And you shall become a horror, a proverb, and a byword amon… | ESV.org)

110

Trust me, pat does not know philosophy so that won’t be a philosophical discussion. Besides, proving the existence of something is a scientific endeavor, not philosophical.

111

There is no mention of heaven there. At all. And that man spoke up, he demonstrated faith.

112

Jesus says something to the order of “today you will be with me in paradise”. I don’t see how that is not interpreted as being in heaven, but I am open to discussion.

1 Like
113

Some versions specifically say miscarry. Here is NIV.

21 here the priest is to put the woman under this curse—“may the LORD cause you to become a curse among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell.

I agree in a way, but if it isn’t mandating abortion, the other alternatives are not great either. Maybe God is lying to ignorant people and the potion does nothing. That would make me not trust much else after these passages.

114

Okay, so you’re an agnostic, by definition. So to clarify I have 2 different views of God. The academic, deductive reasoning based existence of God. This is what I use when discussing existence, because it does not rely on divine revelation or any sort of religious component to make the claim.

The other is the God as we know him through Christianity. I am sure, where and how I grew up has influence here, but it’s not solely that, as I grew up I didn’t take people’s word for it. I did my own research and study.
Christianity is unique among the Abrahamic traditions. There is no ‘one path’ per se (except in the person of Jesus Christ) for redemption. The Christian claim frees everyone of pedigree, position, of birth right of every impediment between a person and God. You don’t act righteous and get redemption, redemption is offered freely to anybody who is willing to accept it. All persons, who accept the sacrifice of Jesus has redemption open and offered to them and it doesn’t matter who you are.
Further, I have not seen good reasons to doubt the teachings of Christ in the scriptures and further have seen good reasons to believe them, both through my own experiences and the witness of others.
Following the teachings in the New Testament works and the results are pretty reliable. So I have reason to believe the God of the Bible is who He says He is. And that’s why I am Christian.
I don’t claim mutual exclusivity to Christianity. I do not believe Hindu’s, Muslims, Buddhists, Jews, or anybody else is necessarily going to hell. I cannot judge, only God can do that so I leave that job up to Him.

This is an excellent, albeit long debate between Christopher Hitchens and William Lane Craig… Make no mistake this is a heavy weight fight. It’s long, but it’s entertaining as well and extremely informative, no matter which side you fall on. If you have the time, I recommend watching it. It’s really good.

115

I suppose, from what I’ve gathered @pat. My view is mostly from what I’ve arrived at. And, I’m sure, some very summarized readings of philosophers and theologians. I ain’t all book learned apologist.

For me, in short.

If no God, there is no independent moral law we’re bound to as intelligent beings. Or, to Judge the god of some religion with. Not in any meaningful way besides an opinion swapping session. My favorite color is blue but I realize the “right” favorite color doesn’t actually exist.

If God does exist then he is the final authority. He could forbid us murder, yet end all human kind himself. And that would be final and inescapably moral.

1 Like
116

Yes. Gnostic or agnostic refer to knowledge. I don’t know. Theist or atheist refers to belief. I would say I am both agnostic and atheist as I don’t know and I don’t believe. I don’t think one has to specifically believe there are no gods to be an atheist.

I have watched this in the past. IIRC, WLC presents the Kalam Cosmological Argument with a bit of his own twist on it, right? If so, I can explain why I think his argument has some flaws to it.

117

Well, we are dealing with transnational issues, then. I was using the ESV version. A version I know was specifically and methodically referenced to a direct translation of the oldest most reliably known texts. I will have to look at the history of NIV.

Well we don’t really know, we never lived in an age or place like that. And yes, people were largely ignorant back then. We’re talking about the ancient Hebrews, who at the time, were not particularly well known for scholarly endeavors. God has a history of picking the most lowly of people to do his bidding and He chose the Hebrews for some reason. Why not the way more advanced Egyptians? I have no idea. Much of the Pentateuch was designed for the ignorant. And I mean it in an academic way, not as a slight. If we lived back then, few of us would have the luxury of a good education. We’d be trying to eek out a living like everyone else.
Did such a purity test work, providing there is no bad intent by the parties involved, I don’t know. Doesn’t seem like it, but we’re looking at a 5000 year old culture. 21st century means and ways certainly cloud our judgement.
Further, keep in mind that this wasn’t just scripture, it was a constitution for a people. Church and state went hand in hand. But yes, these people needed everything spelled out for them in great detail. They had to be forbidden from eating vultures and buzzards for crying out loud. Otherwise they would and clearly did if they had to be told not to. I guess you go to any lengths when you are hungry.

118

Do you think the Bible is inspired by God or a work of men? I think the latter. I think the Bible make a lot more sense if it is a work of man and not of God. I think if it was a work of God, that is would explain that it isn’t a sin to eat pork, but that it is dangerous because of the current cooking methods. Otherwise, you would end up outdated rules that don’t make much sense eventually, and you would think God would know that, and clarify, when men of the time would not know.

119

The Kalam isn’t my favorite version of the argument. It’s sound, but it lacks a little too much detail. WLC loved it though, he used it a lot. And he used it to great effect, despite having more powerful tool in his tool chest. I’ve had the opportunity to meet and speak with WLC a great deal, I even got him to concede a point to me once… Super nice guy, I don’t have a bad word to say about him.
I am sure I share the same criticisms of Kalam as you do, it’s not the one I use, because it relies on causes preceding their effects. I default to the ‘Argument from Contingency’. That is the most comprehensive argument, requiring the least amount of agreement on the premises because they are so basal.

He did Sam Harris too, if you have never seen that one. Sam says one line in their that I really like talking about Craig, that he’s 'the one theist that puts the fear of God in his fellow atheists. ’ Which is a hell of a compliment though they largely didn’t get along.

120

I think it both. Just that there are too many home-runs in it to have been solely the work of ancient man. There is a lot of way-ahead-of-its-time wisdom and the depth of many of the stories are endless to have been just some dude’s ideas. There is just nothing else like it. Never has been, and likely never will be.