The Righteous and Religious Debate
Want to say something off topic? Something that has nothing to do with Trek? Post it here.
posted on November 3rd, 2007, 8:51 pm
Correct me if I am wrong Red, but isn't the "eternity of hopelessness" a non-scriptural hell?
Dr. Lazarus
posted on November 3rd, 2007, 8:53 pm
Yes you're right Red, in fact my old religion didn't believe in a firey hell. They simply believed in an armageddon execution of bone-chilling horror. Needless to say I don't have a lot of respect for such belief systems. The eternity of hopelessness is interesting but again, how do people determine how those scriptures should be interpreted? Again, it's entirely subjective. With a fertile imagination, you can squueze any interpretation or prophecy out of the bible you like.
posted on November 3rd, 2007, 8:57 pm
once again, I'm sorry, I seem to be saying that alot now. I was kinda hard pressed for time, I had to do chores and stuff like that. What I said was hasty and should have been better worded, some of it probably didn't even need to be said. I do apologize though, for telling u that you're going to hell. It didn't really need to be said and was unneccessary for the argument.
Dr. Lazarus
posted on November 3rd, 2007, 9:04 pm
You're a big person for apologising about that one thing, makes me feel like saying sorry myself. Although, I have strong resistance about apologising for what I see as simple logic and thought, a non-personal thing. And I am very sure that I am right, nothing I've said can be (or has been) refuted. But I am sorry for my abrasive style. It keeps popping its ugly head.
posted on November 3rd, 2007, 9:15 pm
Dr. Lazarus wrote:Yes you're right Red, in fact my old religion didn't believe in a firey hell. They simply believed in an armageddon execution of bone-chilling horror. Needless to say I don't have a lot of respect for such belief systems. The eternity of hopelessness is interesting but again, how do people determine how those scriptures should be interpreted? Again, it's entirely subjective. With a fertile imagination, you can squueze any interpretation or prophecy out of the bible you like.
Indeed. Which is why your characterization is undoubtedly a misrepresentation, and resembles a straw man in uncanny form.
Dr. Lazarus
posted on November 3rd, 2007, 9:26 pm
Red, I don't (ever) make straw man arguments. That would only be a straw man if there were some better alternative which I have unfortunately misrepresented. Your eternity of hopelessness thing is just something that someone made up. An honest look at the bible shows that even amongst the myriad of subjective interpretations, not one is benevolent. I'm afraid it's you that's making a straw man out of the (rather offensive) scriptures which describe hell.
Red, I know all the classic logical fallacies including the straw man. I studied them until I was blue in the face and I'm very careful to avoid them. That's not to say I'm incapable of accidentally doing it, but that did not happen here. Very clever and nice try, but no.[br]Posted on: November 03, 2007, 10:22:14 pm
Also, for once will some of you religious guys dish out some scriptures or something. You carefully avoid specific quotes because, like me, you know what their nature is. So, find some of the bible's classic hell scriptures and show me how and why you decided it doesn't say what it says. Note the how and the why. Very important.
Red, I know all the classic logical fallacies including the straw man. I studied them until I was blue in the face and I'm very careful to avoid them. That's not to say I'm incapable of accidentally doing it, but that did not happen here. Very clever and nice try, but no.[br]Posted on: November 03, 2007, 10:22:14 pm
Also, for once will some of you religious guys dish out some scriptures or something. You carefully avoid specific quotes because, like me, you know what their nature is. So, find some of the bible's classic hell scriptures and show me how and why you decided it doesn't say what it says. Note the how and the why. Very important.
posted on November 3rd, 2007, 9:30 pm
Dr. Lazarus wrote:Red, I don't (ever) make straw man arguments. That would only be a straw man if there were some better alternative which I have unfortunately misrepresented. Your eternity of hopelessness thing is just something that someone made up. An honest look at the bible shows that even amongst the myriad of subjective interpretations, not one is benevolent. I'm afraid it's you that's making a straw man out of the (rather offensive) scriptures which describe hell.
Well, allow me to better elaborate, then. It's not that you eclipse a viewpoint in better standing, but it is that you used a single viewpoint among many to make a point that the God in question is unloving. However, you yourself point out that anyone can really make out whatever they want regarding hell, so how can you direct an argument at a diety based on something like that?
Red, I know all the classic logical fallacies including the straw man. I studied them until I was blue in the face and I'm very careful to avoid them. That's not to say I'm incapable of accidentally doing it, but that did not happen here. Very clever and nice try, but no.
Ah, but if I thought you had somehow forgotten what a straw man was (essentially setting an opposing viewpoint up to take a fall), then why did I mention it by name intead of describing it?
Dr. Lazarus
posted on November 3rd, 2007, 9:43 pm
Last edited by Dr. Lazarus on November 3rd, 2007, 9:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
It's not that you eclipse a viewpoint in better standing, but it is that you used a single viewpoint among many to make a point that the God in question is unloving.
Yes, I used that particular issue to show how (the Christian) God is unloving, but the point is that no matter what way you look at it even figurative, non-literal interpretations do not demonstrate God's love in any way, shape or form. You've yet to even explain why you do not interpret the verses literally, but that's a separate issue.
However, you yourself point out that anyone can really make out whatever they want regarding hell, so how can you direct an argument at a diety based on something like that?
Well, yes and no. These particular scriptures seem pretty unambiguous actually, so they would seem to be the exception rather than the rule. However, let's examine two possibilities:
Situation A: We cannot make out what we want from the hell scriptures.
Well then, God's lovely firey hell exists because you can only take the scriptures one way, and they mention fire and sulfur and other things that can burn you so we'll go with that.
Situation B: We actually can make what we want of the scriptures.
Then what value does the bible have? If we can make such a broad spectrum of wildly different interpretations from the scriptures, then its author is very poor, and it is badly written and unclear. We never claim that say a Physical Chemistry textbook is inspired of God, and we can expect to find little errors and typos. However, generally speaking the information is clearly written and unambiguous, such that it is even cited by experts. Can you say the same for the bible? Even this is an argument against any diety having written it.
It's easy to dismiss the Christian God Red, you must be able to see that by now. It's not so easy to disprove the existence of "higher beings", but even then you can make some conclusions based on our our world and our life. Have a look at my sig for more on that.
posted on November 3rd, 2007, 9:52 pm
I simply wish for you to decide whether you are crusading against the nature of God or those who intemperate it.
Dr. Lazarus
posted on November 3rd, 2007, 10:14 pm
Last edited by Dr. Lazarus on November 3rd, 2007, 10:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I'm "crusading" against those people who never exercise their thinking ability.
If there is a God up there, we can say very little about his nature, so there is nothing to assault. We can conclude certain things though, based on a review of the bible and a study of our world, and of nature. If there is anybody up there at all, they are nothing like the creationist God described by the world's major religions. This should be a relief, not bad news.
It is not right to believe in, say, Christian creationism just because we have no other real explanations of origins. Those people will put forth clearly erroneous reasons why evolution is wrong, for example by claiming that order cannot come from disorder, or that we evolved from chimps. Have you ever heard of "getting the right answer for the wrong reason"? If we were created, it was not by via the discrete creationist way. This is merely one example of intellectual stagnation that seems to be evident in people across the world.
I would never crusade against people who use sound reasoning, or against a truly loving God. I really hope he's up there but it's unlikely, unless he's non-personal, non-loving, not omnipotent, not omniscient, absent, some of the above, or all of the above. So it's apparent that, in the small chance that a God is up there who even remotely resembles your idealistic description, you are busily defending a deity whose characteristics you are not even aware of.
If there is a God up there, we can say very little about his nature, so there is nothing to assault. We can conclude certain things though, based on a review of the bible and a study of our world, and of nature. If there is anybody up there at all, they are nothing like the creationist God described by the world's major religions. This should be a relief, not bad news.
It is not right to believe in, say, Christian creationism just because we have no other real explanations of origins. Those people will put forth clearly erroneous reasons why evolution is wrong, for example by claiming that order cannot come from disorder, or that we evolved from chimps. Have you ever heard of "getting the right answer for the wrong reason"? If we were created, it was not by via the discrete creationist way. This is merely one example of intellectual stagnation that seems to be evident in people across the world.
I would never crusade against people who use sound reasoning, or against a truly loving God. I really hope he's up there but it's unlikely, unless he's non-personal, non-loving, not omnipotent, not omniscient, absent, some of the above, or all of the above. So it's apparent that, in the small chance that a God is up there who even remotely resembles your idealistic description, you are busily defending a deity whose characteristics you are not even aware of.
posted on November 3rd, 2007, 10:19 pm
This IS going to sound terrible and is a terrible representation of the Christian people here, but I truly do not know enough of the Bible at this point. I would like to thank you for pointing this out to me, but this does NOT mean that I am agreeing with any of your points. I have now realized how completely uneducated I am in the Bible, but this does NOT mean that I am convinced, any way that you are right and there is no God.
One other thing I've realized is that I'm TERRIBLE at arguing...lol. I just kinda suck at it. I say kind of what's on my mind, but I generally don't have much to back it up with. I hope this doesn't totally wreck what we've been debating, but it does explain why I haven't 'thrown' scriptures at you. Also, on another kind of side track, if u do believe that the scriptures are totally false, why would giving u scriptures help in any way shape or form, since it would only seem like a book that some random person wrote to you and any others reading this?
One other thing I've realized is that I'm TERRIBLE at arguing...lol. I just kinda suck at it. I say kind of what's on my mind, but I generally don't have much to back it up with. I hope this doesn't totally wreck what we've been debating, but it does explain why I haven't 'thrown' scriptures at you. Also, on another kind of side track, if u do believe that the scriptures are totally false, why would giving u scriptures help in any way shape or form, since it would only seem like a book that some random person wrote to you and any others reading this?
Dr. Lazarus
posted on November 3rd, 2007, 10:34 pm
It would seem like just a random book you are right. I guess at least it would show me that your beliefs are based on something, even if that foundation is questionable.
It might interest you to know that I left religion after reading the bible. That's how it happened. Many agnostics became that way because they read the bible in detail. It's a strange irony that they know the bible better than many Christians do, and it's not a coincidence either.
So the simple fact is, I do not need to "deconvert" you, you can do that yourself. Simply read the bible. I think everybody should.
It might interest you to know that I left religion after reading the bible. That's how it happened. Many agnostics became that way because they read the bible in detail. It's a strange irony that they know the bible better than many Christians do, and it's not a coincidence either.
So the simple fact is, I do not need to "deconvert" you, you can do that yourself. Simply read the bible. I think everybody should.
posted on November 3rd, 2007, 10:36 pm
Last edited by auxilio ab alto on November 3rd, 2007, 10:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
ok, i would like to know of some instances that you speak about on how the Bible contradicts itself, I find it hard to argue when there's nothing that I know of at the moment to look at. How bout we start there?
*Edit, whoops just realized...
K, I just realized, you've been giving me examples of contradictions, I was wondering more on the side of, like exact bible verses, or something like that, other than "God is not benevolent/manevolant"...whichever one is which. Like, are there verses u know of that actually contradict themselves, or were u meaning something else when u said that?
*Edit, whoops just realized...
K, I just realized, you've been giving me examples of contradictions, I was wondering more on the side of, like exact bible verses, or something like that, other than "God is not benevolent/manevolant"...whichever one is which. Like, are there verses u know of that actually contradict themselves, or were u meaning something else when u said that?
posted on November 3rd, 2007, 10:53 pm
Dr. Lazarus wrote:I'm "crusading" against those people who never exercise their thinking ability.
It's good to know I have nothing to fear.
p.s. it looks like someone had fun with the topic title. Jan is the likely culprit.
Dr. Lazarus
posted on November 3rd, 2007, 11:01 pm
Last edited by Dr. Lazarus on November 4th, 2007, 12:52 am, edited 1 time in total.
I don't recall talking about contradiction per se, but there are examples, such as whether or not we are saved by faith or by works, whether we are punished for the sins of others, and many numerical contradictions.
(Romans 3:28, James 2:17)
(Exodus 20:5, Deuteronomy 5:9, Deuteronomy 24:16, Ezekiel 18:20)
(1 Kings 5:16, 2 Chronicles 2:18)
As for qualifying God's malevolence, a simple read will do. Even if the bible didn't contradict itself, the God it describes is still unworthy of our worship.
(Romans 3:28, James 2:17)
(Exodus 20:5, Deuteronomy 5:9, Deuteronomy 24:16, Ezekiel 18:20)
(1 Kings 5:16, 2 Chronicles 2:18)
As for qualifying God's malevolence, a simple read will do. Even if the bible didn't contradict itself, the God it describes is still unworthy of our worship.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests