Re: Re: Engaging Elliot
elliotfc said:
Hey Trickster, nice of you to butt in. 8)
My pleasure.
I admit that Christian premises are circular and reinforce each other. What you have to do is enter the circle first, and that's usually by being attracted to a loci. I was attracted to objective morality. Once in the circle, positive feedback can easily kick in.
Can negative feedback kick in as well? If not, why not?
Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "objective morality". It seems to me that morality is, by definition, subjective.
One way is that God, in fact, *did* everything that is assigned to him in the Bible. By definition, all that he does is good.
Another way is that God did not in fact *do* the things in the Bible that we consider to be bad, and that the assignation was an unfortunate mixup by the people/writers in question.
That is extremely interesting. I've never heard a Christian suggest that the things, especially the miracles, that happened in the Bible were not "God's doing". I applaud you for making an admission that few Christians are willing to admit.
Here's how I look at it. Good is completely contingent upon God. Good is a synonym for God. So, I'm really not saying ANYTHING when I say God is good. I'm just saying God is God. (of course good is an adjective and God is noun, but I think you can get my point). Personally, I pick and choose between the two ways I listed above (based on discernment and reason of course). It's a smell test I guess. Here's hoping my own particular take on objective morality is equivalent to God's, eh?
If I couldn't, or wasn't interested, in linking *good* to God, I wouldn't be a religious person. As I see it, it's the necessary corrollary to a true belief in objective morality.
It seems like your linking would suggest that only those who followed God could be "good". I strongly disagree with such a linking. It would mean that I am bad, and I don't think I am.
And again, I must ask that you defend "objective morality". I actually believe in a version of it too, but come from a different direction. It would be interesting to compare our definitions.
I think it can only be defined as tautology (others would say faith, and I don't think I'd disagree with that either, but tautology may make more sense).
I'm glad you recognize that. The difference between faith and tautology eludes many. What eludes me is why you recognize the tautology and yet still honor it. Faithfully.
Right, some Christians may say that, but I think the general idea is that God allows bad things to happen to people. This idea has a very early depiction in the story of Job. Modern Christians (at least the fundamentalists and conservatives) believe that Satan has dominion and power in this world, and God only works in a sort of subterfugic way.
As others have said, God didn't just "allow" bad things, He did them Himself.
As far as what fundamentalists believe, I would not say that they had a consistant viewpoint. They take all sorts of positions to defend the indefensible, like "God is all powerful but can't do anything about Satan."
And it isn't he "may" have good reasons for allowing bad to happen. He does, in fact, have a good reason for allowing bad to happen, because all his reasons are, by definition, good.
I can certainly see how this would be frustrating to those outside the loop. Which is why I always say that logic is dependent on premises, and it's always better to say "I reject your premises" than "You're being illogical". It is, I think, extremely problematic for the materialist to speak of logic as if it is objective truth. Logic is a human construct contingent on not only the brain, but language and reasoning and the ability to construct arguments and the ability to frame ideas and senses into some coherent form. It just doesn't exist beyond the human brain (to the materialist that is).
I agree that logic is human construct, and also that it is dependant upon premises. As far as "existing beyond the human brain", I must say, as a materialist, that the ability for it to exist beyond the human brain must be demonstrated. If you cannot, then we are once again in the realm of "faith".
A different meaning, but not completely different to the Christian. The Christian believes that he/she is created in God's image and is quite capable of being good, or doing good. Heck, God became a human in Christ, so it can't be completely different.
Where the difference lies is that humans can reject good, and God can't. I've read arguments in the past that God's inability to not do good is commensurate to his not being omnipotent. Shrug.
And again, I must suggest that what God means by "good" is completely incompatible with what humans call "good". No human would condemn innocent people to die in, let's say, an earthquake. God would. How can we say that "good" has any meaning if such senseless killing is allowed? Was Jack the Ripper "good"? He might have had a reason too.
Of course it's definitely true (I think) that if a belief system is internally INCONSISTENT, it can not be true. This is why a great deal of effort is exerted, by atheists, in exposing internal inconsistencies in Christianity. That is a markedly different approach from attacking the premises. The problem with that approach is, almost invariably, one man's internal inconsistency is another man's internal consistency. Argh!
I think it's relatively easy to expose the internal inconstancies in Christianity, even (and especially) given it's premises. It does not pass any logical test. Any attempt to do so involves redefining the premises.
Exactly! This goes for me triple! My conclusions existed before I really did a detailed exploration of the Bible. Going the other way around (starting with the Bible, and then forming my conclusion) never really occurred to me...
Would it occur to you that your "conclusions" were based on a Christian-centered environment in which you were raised? Was your morality in place before you discovered the source of it? I know that my concepts of "good and bad" were formed very early in life, and I have a hard time, even as an adult, trying to reject any of them. Many of my moral principles are similar to Christian morality, which says to me that religion is not the only thing that defines morality.
Most fundamentalists would not call me a fundamentalist, although I like to think of myself as one, if only because I feel like we're on the same side. But I think it definitely works for them, too. I think that many times people get active in a church, and that frames how they read the Bible. I really think that it is rare that people start with the Bible (and I mean really break it down) and then hook up with a particular church.
I think that when you say "break it down" that you involve a whole lot of subjective reasoning. It suggests that there is not a single way to "break it down". Even when you do so, the parts are dissimilar.
Now my question is...would you rather people, in fact, start with the Bible and then form their own conclusions? (Of course you'd rather people ditch the Bible altogether no doubt, but lets forget that for the moment 
.) In my opinion, it is a good thing that people have an overarching frame of reference when reading the Bible. Without that, it's frankly a tough thing to get your head around, you know? It is true that God is described in many different ways in the Bible. You need something going into it in order to make sense of it all.
Actually, you are wrong. I do not wish that people ditch the Bible altogether. I wish that they would recognize it as a book of philosophy (and history, to some extent) which says some very good things. What I wish to be ditched is the idea that it is either infallible or that it is the work of God. It is clearly the work of Man, with all their fallibilities. It seems so obvious because God is described in so many different ways. Only humans could foul things up so completely.
You are assuming that the Bible is the only data available. I would say that a whole mess of data (the world, the self, and everything) went into the conclusions, which frame the Bible when read carefully.
If the conclusions are INDEPENDENT of the Bible...surely that's a good thing, right?
This goes for atheists too, of course. The Gospels are "re-interpreted" by atheists to fit their own conclusions (they are fables, interpolated frauds, etc).
The world and everything are only "evidence" of t bible if you already believe in the bible. The world exists for everyone. Only Christians think it has anything to do with their God. It is a clear case of data fitting. And I see you recognize this. For a Christian, you are remarkably insightful.
This goes for atheists too, of course. The Gospels are "re-interpreted" by atheists to fit their own conclusions (they are fables, interpolated frauds, etc).
They are indeed interpreted, but without preset conclusions. The atheists I know are genuinely interested in whatever truth exists in the Bible. They are not out to discredit it, but rather to understand the history of such a remarkable book. They cannot do so if they make assumptions about it. However, many things about the bible (such as the creation story) are so very provably wrong, that it does not make much sense to deal with them as anything other than myths.
I fully accept that some theological notions were held by people thousands of years ago. I accept that as a fact (theological notions were held by others thousands of years ago). Now, I personally don't share those theological notions, yet that doesn't mean that the notions weren't in circulation during the times in question.
To extend that...I don't think that the point of the Bible is to have one consistent theology! I think the whole point is to have a developing theology. The Bible could have been a hell of a lot shorter if the theology was unified and consistent. I believe that Jesus would have been irrelevant if that was the case (I'm actually doing research on a book that will deal with this thesis).
I totally respect your goal. But what you are describing is the evolution of an entire culture, not just its religion. I think that you will find that the religion follows the culture rather than vice versa. Just look at how modern Christians have manipulated the Bible to conform to their beliefs. Homosexuality? Abortion? These were not major biblical issues.
I often feel like I'm talking past other people, or they are talking past me. Reading the Bible is all about expectations. If the expectations differ, so will the interpretations. This is why I always try to get the expectations on the table before I get into a big discussion about a specific biblical issue. Once I know the expectation, I can basically tell the person what interpretation they'll have, and vice versa.
The tricky part is that sometimes I don't think that the expectation, as said by a person, is the actual expectation that the person has. That's a touchy one, and you've got to tread lightly, especially when talking to a well-meaning and decent fundamentalist.
In this, I agree with you completely. I can usually tell within minutes of beginning a philosophical discussion what a person's viewpoints are and what arguments they will make. You are the rare and cherished exception. You continually surprise me. I would love to have you arguing my side, because you would do a remarkable job of it.
I don't want any of the Bible to be excised from the book. If I were to take a scientific field, like evolution, I could write a thick book that details the evolution of the theories of evolution. Where contradictions exist, I will explain them, identify the mistakes, and deal with each step of the way accordingly WITH A CONCLUSION IN MIND. In that way, such a book would be 100% true, even though some of the things stated in the book are not in fact true.
Such a book you describe would be very large. A whole library could not contain it. I would not advocate that anything be excised from the Bible, but rather I would like to see things added. The Dead Sea Scrolls, perhaps. The bits about Adam's first wife. Indeed all the writings on theology would be much larger than most libraries. Would you hold a single book sacrosanct against revision? Why?
Now, most evolution texts will NOT include every rejected idea and hypothesis that came before. The vital ones, of course, will be included, and others will be shown for didactic purposes. But it's not necessary to include everything.
Indeed. Why should the Bible be different? If a story (such as Genesis) is shown to be a fable, borrowed from other creation myths, then why must it be included?
With the Bible, I think it is necessary to have all of the inconsistencies shine through without editorializing or editing. I want to see how we got to Jesus. I just don't want the finished product, or the theology that I agree with the most. That's why I say it is 100% true. The progression is vital and necessary to the fulfillment.
So even if X didn't happen, it matters that people really thought it happened. And even if idea Y about God isn't accurate, it matters that people really thought it was accurate.
Okay, you have answered my previous question. What you want is a history, or as you say, progression. But if that is what you want, then the Bible is woefully incomplete. Why not amend it with other texts? Do you think other Christians would mind?
I don't know if it's that we can't understand them. We may not be able to understand them as God understands them...or, we may not be able to understand everything. But understanding is possible. This goes back to my admitted belief in objective morality. I believe that I understand the notion that some things are right and some things are wrong. I believe that the notion is true. My understanding is sufficient for me; it may be insufficient for others. It might be a bit like the calculus, which can be understood on different levels.
You say understanding is possible, but I don't believe it is. If there is such a thing as objective morality, then where does God fit into it? He is often in violation of our "subjective" morality. To invoke a "higher morality" seems to invite all kinds of abuses in "the name of God" because someone has decided that they understand the "objective morality". No, I reject such human decisions about objective morality, even those with the best intentions. What was it that the road to Hell was paved with?
The difference between...
I think it's the F word.
The perfect truth, when comprehended and possessed completely, would make faith irrelevant I think.
Yup. If we knew everything, the F word would be irrelevant. You think that will happen any time soon?
I get snarky when people say demeaning things towards people of faith. When people assume people of faith are consumed by fear, or are stupid and illogical, etc. I don't take that personally, but I take it as if someone is insulting a family member. Moreover, it makes me angry to see a person make themselves look bad, for that is what happens when you define people who disagree with you in such a way.
This is why it is advised that one never discuss religion or politics. Oddly, I find that my best friends are those with whom I can discuss anything. I guess it is strangers (like those on these boards) that one must be careful with. But then, that is also the allure of such forums. You can say things you would never say to people you were worried about insulting.
Don't expect too much of us mere mortals. We all have our faults and prejudices.
As as side note, I am intrigued to see the word "snarky" become such a common thing. I grew up loving Lewis Carroll's "The Hunting of the Snark" and I find myself nonplussed to see the word take on a meaning that doesn't seem to fit the story. Ah well, I will adjust.
It's quite likely if not certain that I have been incivil here, and it's usually if not always in response to, at the very least, perceived incivility. Not the most mature thing, and not turning the other cheek, but in this cynical medium I don't know if that can be conveyed.
I think you have done a remarkable job of remaining civil in a place that must make you feel like Daniel in the lion's den. I respect you greatly for it, and I hope you will continue to contribute. I will also disagree with you at almost every turn. My respect for you is such that I do not feel that you will take such disagreements as a personal insult.
