Penn & Teller barbecue the Bible

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
It's not the thinking that's prohibited. It's certain choices.

Human freedom includes consideration and choosing, but it doesn't include defining good and evil. You either choose goodness (God), or you are free to choose otherwise, but you must live with the consequences of your choice.

Again, we are free to choose. We must simply live with the consequences of our choices.

See, I'd accept that, if God wasn't the one making the consequences. For instance, imagine seatbelt use wasn't mandatory. If I chose to get in the car without wearing it, I'm acknowledging the potential consequences. If I get into an accident, there is a greater risk of serious injury than if I wear one. The consequence is a natural one-an outcome of the act itself.

Yet the consequences of not wearing your seat belt can include the entire spectrum. You might never get in an accident, so no problem. You might wear your seat belt "religiously", then the one day you forget, you get dead.

The consequences of a rejection of God may be a similar comparison. If God has chosen you, you may be "disciplined" more than another. Why? I don't know. However:

John 6:44

No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draw him...

The Bible, however, teaches the opposite. God imposes the consequences for disobeying him.

The consequences of rejecting God is a life without God. That is abundantly clear.

Moses' speech about all the curses Israel will suffer if they don't follow God, for example.

Those "curses" amount to life without God's blessings.

Jonah being swallowed by the whale, being thrown into the lake of fire at the end of times-all examples of God saying, "I will do this to you if you don't obey me."

Matthew 5:45

....He makes his sun rise on the bad and the good, and causes rain to fall on the just and the unjust.

That's not free will. A mugger holding a gun to your head and saying, "Your money or your life" is not free will-only dictating and punishment for disobedience.

You still have free will. You have the choice to counterattack the mugger. You have the choice to give him the few bucks in your pocket and hope he goes away. You have the choice to tell him to go ◊◊◊◊ himself, because you're not giving him squat.

Some choices are wise, some are not, but whatever you do, you will have to endure the consequences.

Don't like it? Put an end to armed robbery.

Good luck.

To have free will, I'd have to be able to say to God, "Nope, not happening" and not have to worry that he'll be the one imposing the consequences.

And therein lies the problem. You want to be God.

If there are natural consequences to disobeying (such as, for example, if Joseph disobeyed God and didn't flee Bethlehem ahead of Herod's henchmen-which would have resulted in Jesus being among the massacred), that's one thing. Then I'd be able to rationally look at the real consequences of obeying (Joseph, Mary and Jesus surviving), vice disobeying (Jesus being killed (if not all three of them)).

But you didn't get to "rationally look" at the consequences of Joseph's disobedience, because Joseph was obedient to God's will at all times.

Unfortunately, there's no way to know what the natural consequences of not accepting Jesus might be.

Yes, there is. Rejection of Christ will mean either a life without Christ, or (if you're lucky) a series of disciplinary measures from God that bring you back around (like Jonah, David, and others have gotten).

Many non-Christians lead happy, successful (as defined by them) lives. They aren't in want and they're not suffering, so happiness doesn't seem to be predicated solely on being a Christian, nor does success and health.

Correct. Happiness doesn't seem to be predicated solely on being a Christian, nor does success and health. All good things are predicated solely on the blessings of God.

The only consequences we know of are the ones God threatens us with in the Bible.

Those are the only consequences you appear to entertain.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by ImaginalDisc
You can't use the gospels as evidence of the cruci-ficition.

Originally Posted by elliotfc
Sure you can, a lot of people do. That's like saying you can't eat ice cream. Sure you can.

I think what Imaginal is saying is that you can't do it without committing a fallacy. It's not logically valid to use the gospels as evidence of very much at all.

That's what he is saying, but he is defining evidence in accordance with The World According to Imaginal Disc.

I choose not to share his world with him.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by ImaginalDisc
No, you can't; it's logically impossible.

I got your back.

Wow. How reassurring that must be.

Psalms 118:8

Better to take refuge in the LORD than to put one's trust in mortals.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

I got your back.

Ah, thanks

 

[IllegalArgument]

Bascially, the message I'm getting from Huntster.

"I'm doing good things because God will punish me if I don't"

Is this really the only reason you would do good things? I have faith that's not true.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

That's what he is saying, but he is defining evidence in accordance with The World According to Imaginal Disc.

I choose not to share his world with him.

It's the world according to the elementary rules of logic. If two or more documents directly conradict one another, they cannot all be true. Conversely, they may all be false.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
No, I cannot prove it. That is why the central theme of God is faith.

One must believe or reject. It is that simple. And we must all live with the consequences of our decision.

Alright, then how can one reject an answer as incorrect if one first rejects the entire concept of mathematics needed to provide what is considered correct or incorrect?

You may reject the entire concept of mathematics if you so choose, and you will have to live with the consequences.

The analogy of absolutes still does not hold up.

This is absolute:

If you reject God, you run the risk of life without Him. If you accept Him, there is the possibility of living life with Him.

Catholic theology defines Hell as such:

The state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed, reserved for those who refuse by their own free choice to believe and be converted from sin, even to the end of their lives

That seems pretty simple to me. If you exclude yourself from God by your own free choice, God may allow your choice.

I don’t see why I should accept the concept of the laws of good/evil....

How about because this is how the universe was set up?

Do you refuse to accept the the laws of gravity? Time? Relativity?

thus I can not proceed to accept or reject that God is good and/or Godlessness is evil...

What you are refusing to accept are the determinations of previous theologians/sages/clergy that God is Good, and that Goodness is God.

The rules to get to that point haven’t been shown to exist quite yet.

Yes, they have. You reject them because they don't fit your evidentiary requirements.

 

[RandFan]

That's what he is saying, but he is defining evidence in accordance with The World According to Imaginal Disc.

I choose not to share his world with him.

You are free to do what ever you want (so long as it is legal) but that won't change the fact that it is still a fallacy. In addition to Imaginal's point, it's circular logic. You have to have faith that the Bible is the word of God before you can use it as evidence of much of anything.

 

[Huntster]

Bascially, the message I'm getting from Huntster.

"I'm doing good things because God will punish me if I don't"

Then you have misinterpreted me.

What I'm saying is this:

"I seek communion with God because I love Him, I'm grateful for the blessings He has bestowed on me, I wish to be one with God because He is Goodness, and God makes me very happy."

I will also say this:

"There have been times in my life when I was thinking and behaving in a manner which God disapproved of, and like the loving Father He is, he disciplined me."

What loving Father fails to guides and discipline his children?

Is this really the only reason you would do good things?

Nope.

 

[I less than three logic]

You may reject the entire concept of mathematics if you so choose, and you will have to live with the consequences.



This is absolute:

If you reject God, you run the risk of life without Him. If you accept Him, there is the possibility of living life with Him.

Catholic theology defines Hell as such:



That seems pretty simple to me. If you exclude yourself from God by your own free choice, God may allow your choice.



How about because this is how the universe was set up?

Do you refuse to accept the the laws of gravity? Time? Relativity?



What you are refusing to accept are the determinations of previous theologians/sages/clergy that God is Good, and that Goodness is God.



Yes, they have. You reject them because they don't fit your evidentiary requirements.

This is a blatant false analogy. There is plenty of evidence for gravity, time, and relativity, enough to prove the concepts in the scientific sense. You’ve already admitted that your laws of good/evil can not be proven in such a way. Your analogy is simply wrong.

 

[Huntster]

....You have to have faith that the Bible is the word of God before you can use it as evidence of much of anything.

I have faith that the Bible was written by people of God, inspired by God, and it is enough evidence for me to have faith in the teachings of my church.

Is it full understanding? Obviously not.

Is it infallible? Probably not.

It's a hellava lot closer than what I can get from you or Imaginal Disc.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

I have faith that the Bible was written by people of God, inspired by God, and it is enough evidence for me to have faith in the teachings of my church.

Is it full understanding? Obviously not.

Is it infallible? Probably not.

It's a hellava lot closer than what I can get from you or Imaginal Disc.

John, George, Paul, and Ringo's books all contradict one another constantly. It's IMPOSSSIBLE for them to all be true. It's easily possible that they're all false. Logic tells us that you cannot possibly believe them all to be true.

 

[Huntster]

This is a blatant false analogy. There is plenty of evidence for gravity, time, and relativity, enough to prove the concepts in the scientific sense.

Today there is. Ten thousand years ago the evidence of gravity, time, and relativity were there, but there were virtually no conceptual understandings. But the laws were still there, weren't they?

Even today, do we have full understanding of gravity, time, and relativity? Nope.

The same is true of spiritual law.

You’ve already admitted that your laws of good/evil can not be proven in such a way. Your analogy is simply wrong.

You will not prove or disprove spiritual law with physical tests. Period. I'm sorry, but that's just the way it works/doesn't work.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Today there is. Ten thousand years ago the evidence of gravity, time, and relativity were there, but there were virtually no conceptual understandings. But the laws were still there, weren't they?

Even today, do we have full understanding of gravity, time, and relativity? Nope.

The same is true of spiritual law.

Our understanding of the natural universe has been expanded by relentless questioning of assumptions, testing, checking, measuring and meticulous inquiry over thousands of years.

Our "understanding" of "spiritual laws" is maintained by people who refuse to question their own assumptions, and who deny reality.

 

[IllegalArgument]

I have faith that the Bible was written by people of God, inspired by God, and it is enough evidence for me to have faith in the teachings of my church.

Is it full understanding? Obviously not.

Is it infallible? Probably not.

This is why I don't think you need God to be good, you are cherrypicking the parts of the Bible that you think are right. You wouldn't stone your neighbor or give your child up as a burnt offering.

You don't need "God" to be good.

 

[I less than three logic]

Today there is. Ten thousand years ago the evidence of gravity, time, and relativity were there, but there were virtually no conceptual understandings. But the laws were still there, weren't they?

Even today, do we have full understanding of gravity, time, and relativity? Nope.

The same is true of spiritual law.



You will not prove or disprove spiritual law with physical tests. Period. I'm sorry, but that's just the way it works/doesn't work.

What makes you think these laws even exist? Faith is not an acceptable answer here. The laws of gravity, time, and relativity did exist before we had any concept of them that is true. However, they’ve always had a measurable effect, that’s kind of what exist means; we just needed to know how to measure those effects. Our understanding of those laws came about by our noticing of those effects, and develops by our observations of those effects. Your laws of good/evil can have no measurable effect apparently by definition, what does it mean to say they exist then?

 

[Huntster]

John, George, Paul, and Ringo's books all contradict one another constantly. It's IMPOSSSIBLE for them to all be true....

What a lame statement. I don't know why I bother responding to your drivel.

Minor details/words in the Gospels differ. To someone like yourself, who's goal is simply to inject doubt into a world of faith, that's all you want/need.

To me, it remains fully possible that the different authors were describing true events.

It's easily possible that they're all false.

Yup. It is. You think that's the case. I don't.

Logic tells us that you cannot possibly beleive them all to be true.

That's your logic, which I reject.

 

[RandFan]

I have faith that the Bible was written by people of God, inspired by God, and it is enough evidence for me to have faith in the teachings of my church.

Yes, and it is still circular reasoning.

 

[Huntster]

Our understanding of the natural universe has been expanded by relentless questioning of assumptions, testing, checking, measuring and meticulous inquiry over thousands of years.

Our "understanding" of "spiritual laws" is maintained by people who refuse to question their own assumptions, and who deny reality.

Trust a 25 year old child to come up with a statement like that.

Our understanding of spirituality has been undergoing growth, refinement, change, etc since the dawn of mankind. The mere age of the Bible as well as the plethora of religious understanding out there in the world should make that abundantly clear.

It's just that you reject that understanding completely.

 

[RandFan]

You will not prove or disprove spiritual law with physical tests. Period. I'm sorry, but that's just the way it works/doesn't work.

And we will not prove or disprove elves exist with physical laws. Why should we accept either?