Arguments against the Afterlife

Dades

RufustheKing wrote: »

we haven't a clue whats out there and athiests are as just as stupid as the religious thinking that what they know is certain. we don't by the way. science is the new religion or system of belief.

FFS, if you're going to wade in at least have the courtesy to learn what people actually assert before calling them stupid.

We DO have a clue what's out there - the universe. Do we know how it came to be? NO. Does atheism address these questions? Also - NO.

Atheism concerns the lack of belief in other people's gods - not positive assertions as to supposed facts behind our existence.

Mod note:

Your next post better show some more understanding of the subject matter, and be less flippant than your last one or action will be taken.

aidan24326

Dades wrote: »

Which one? Gods are just the deities associated with other people's religions. There is no one true definition of God.

There isn't, but if we consider that god has to be the creator of the world first of all (all the main religions imply this), then it's pretty obvious that that entity would be vastly different from the flawed human character depicted in the bible and other holy texts. So we can say something about what god isn't anyway I think. It's an embarassingly naieve imagination of something that is supposed to be capable of such feats. I hope some day humans will look back with incredulity that their ancestors believed such nonsense.

antiskeptic wrote: »

And so, the idea that the bible could have been made up by disparate people over thousands of years - somehow figuring to compile an infinitely complex and harmonious piece of work - becomes an infinitely distant possibility. .. and beautiful. If you can't (as I couldn't when I first picked it up on being born again - although I sense I was holding something significant in my hands) then sure, it might well appear like something made up. But if you see it as I now see it?

Not in a month of Sundays..[/SIZE]

You're really going to have a tough time explaining that one. An old book of fables and myths has no chance at all of being made up? Really? Your powers of mental gymnastics are extraordinary.

RufustheKing wrote: »

we haven't a clue whats out there and athiests are as just as stupid as the religious thinking that what they know is certain. we don't by the way. science is the new religion or system of belief.

This gets parroted alot these days, and is one of the stupider statements you could come out with. They're completely different ways of looking at the world, though before comparing them as equal systems of thought it's useful to consider which one gave us antibiotics and microprocessors. And which one didn't.

RufustheKing

aidan24326 wrote: »

This gets parroted alot these days, and is one of the stupider statements you could come out with. They're completely different ways of looking at the world, though before comparing them as equal systems of thought it's useful to consider which one gave us antibiotics and microprocessors. And which one didn't.

science also gave us nuclear bombs and nerve gas, whats the point? look at the climate debate. is it warming up or cooling down? we just accept the most popular one without the evidence. religion is a photostill of a time and it is stuck in that time. athiest is like a firmware update, it can never be proven wrong cause it call always say that the evidence wasn't there at the time. If a god was proven to exist, a athiest would be religious.

RufustheKing

RufustheKing wrote: »

science also gave us nuclear bombs and nerve gas, whats the point? look at the climate debate. is it warming up or cooling down? we just accept the most popular one without the evidence.

no we don't will you stop posting rubbish

If a god was proven to exist, a athiest would be religious.

no because existence does not automatically lead to worship

RufustheKing

Dades wrote: »

FFS, if you're going to wade in at least have the courtesy to learn what people actually assert before calling them stupid.

We DO have a clue what's out there - the universe. Do we know how it came to be? NO. Does atheism address these questions? Also - NO.

Atheism concerns the lack of belief in other people's gods - not positive assertions as to supposed facts behind our existence.

Mod note:

Your next post better show some more understanding of the subject matter, and be less flippant than your last one or action will be taken.

I didn't mean to insult your religion dades i was just generalising.

but yes your right we know whats out there, we know 1 trillionth of .00000000000001% whats out there. humans always think they know best. we used to think the world was flat, that the sun revolved around us. smoking for good for us.

we are stupid and ignorant of the real truth. i'll get banned for saying it but we are all very stupid to simply say that god exists or does not exist. prove me wrong.

RufustheKing

bluewolf wrote: »

no we don't will you stop posting rubbish

no because existence does not automatically lead to worship

well then explain the climate problem to a simplton like me.

Knasher

antiskeptic wrote: »

And so, the idea that the bible could have been made up by disparate people over thousands of years - somehow figuring to compile an infinitely complex and harmonious piece of work - becomes an infinitely distant possibility.

Not impossible. But utterly implausible.

Hmmm, yes when you say it like that it does sound rather implausible.

antiskeptic wrote: »

The only question is, I suppose, whether you can (begin to) detect the Bible to be something that is infinitely complex and internally /externally harmonious .. and beautiful. If you can't (as I couldn't when I first picked it up on being born again - although I sense I was holding something significant in my hands) then sure, it might well appear like something made up. But if you see it as I now see it?

Not in a month of Sundays..

Disparate - in what sense do you mean this? You can make direct comparisons between the different gospels (even though apparently the traditional writers were fictional), you can make comparisons between the teachings of Moses, Jesus and Paul. I seriously can't think of a context in which this word makes sense.

infinitely complex - Really? When I read this first I was going to ask you for an example of exactly how the bible could be considered infinitely complex. I realize now, that would be a pointless exercise because you have already given yourself an out in saying that your special powers of being "born again" give you the ability to interpret the bible in the "correct" way which is conveniently inexplicable to those who aren't born again and who don't accept your premise as completely true. Sufficient to say, it doesn't seem infinitely complex to anybody who doesn't accept it as infinitely complex on faith.

internally /externally harmonious - The internally harmonious one would be objectionable on its own, sure theologians have a lot of apologetics to explain away the many contradictions, and perhaps they have hit the nail on the head on every one. But fact of the matter is, if it was harmonious, it wouldn't require any of that. But externally harmonious? You can't expect anybody to take that seriously.

If I were to rephrase your post without those terms it would approximate to:

The idea that the bible could have been made up by a group of people over thousands of years - somehow figuring to compile a work which largely reflects the morals and understanding of the time in which it was written and has strong indications that it may of plagiarized from other beliefs which were held in the same regions.

Which sounds quite plausible to me, at least.

Dades

RufustheKing wrote: »

we are stupid and ignorant of the real truth. i'll get banned for saying it but we are all very stupid to simply say that god exists or does not exist. prove me wrong.

Why would you get banned for paraphrasing something already said?

Dades wrote:

Atheism concerns the lack of belief in other people's gods - not positive assertions as to supposed facts behind our existence.

What you might get banned for is not bothering to read people's posts and blathering on like this week's driveby troll.

Welcome to the last chance saloon.

Mark Hamill

RufustheKing wrote: »

I didn't mean to insult your religion dades i was just generalising.

but yes your right we know whats out there, we know 1 trillionth of .00000000000001% whats out there. humans always think they know best. we used to think the world was flat, that the sun revolved around us. smoking for good for us.

we are stupid and ignorant of the real truth. i'll get banned for saying it but we are all very stupid to simply say that god exists or does not exist. prove me wrong.

Hmmm, comes out will all the same bullsh*t fallacies as a lot of the theists around here (atheism is a religion, you can't say that god doesn't exist prove me wrong"etc) and yet previously claimed to be an agnostic atheist. All the hall marks of a "true atheist" (whatever the hell that is) and not some theist trolling at all :rolleyes:

sephir0th

RufustheKing wrote: »

simplton

Indeed

Andrewf20

antiskeptic wrote: »

There is no such argument. At least, not one that could be made by me to you - if that's what you mean.

But if you are asking whether I can be satisfied that the bible couldn't just be the work of men then yes, that is possible. You see, the sequence of events in a person being born again (typically) appears to be as follows:

- the person is saved by God.
- God turns up and makes himself known to the person.

Part of that making himself known involves his coming to dwell within the person through his spirit. The person notices a change in themselves (although at this stage they might not be aware it's God or God of the bible).

And the person has their spiritual eyes opened. And because of that, they can read the bible in a way that they couldn't before. It wouldn't matter if they had been a theologian before they were saved - they still wouldn't have been able to read the actual message of the bible because of spiritual blindness. Someone barely literate/educated .. but born again, would understand very much more of the bibles core messages than the very best lost theologian. It's that stark a difference, spiritual blindness.


Now that they can read it they find described therein the God who they have living inside them. And the two testimonies (God living within and God speaking through his word) come together like two positive waveforms colliding - they join to make an even larger wave form that has the effect of bringing conviction to the person. Conviction that this is true.

And it keeps on going on like that: the more you read of the bible, the more you see how everything you experience of God and everything about the way the world works .. is as described in the bible. And the case it makes for Everything Being The Way It Is is far more elegant and cohesive and harmonious .. than any other explanation you could begin to dream of accessing.

And so, the idea that the bible could have been made up by disparate people over thousands of years - somehow figuring to compile an infinitely complex and harmonious piece of work - becomes an infinitely distant possibility.

Not impossible. But utterly implausible.


The only question is, I suppose, whether you can (begin to) detect the Bible to be something that is infinitely complex and internally /externally harmonious .. and beautiful. If you can't (as I couldn't when I first picked it up on being born again - although I sense I was holding something significant in my hands) then sure, it might well appear like something made up. But if you see it as I now see it?

Not in a month of Sundays..

I think I see what you are getting at. It sounds like our trust in the Bible / afterlife really comes down to our interpretation of it - how plausible are its teachings / writings. I guess its a frame of mind so to speak.

Ive watched numerous online debates between the bigwigs on both sides (Craig vs Hitchens etc) and what baffles me is how there is such a diversity of opinion between 2 seemingly intelligent debaters. For me when Hitchens talks in particular, he seems to make stronger arguments every time - its something I cannot help.

Ive done some travelling to Asia and come across people who seem utterly convinced of their religon (reincarnation and other ideas) and they see their teachings as dogmatic and making complete sense to them. In a sense, their eyes have been opened. But whos right?

Then infinite regress and questions like "what is the point of the afterlife and this life experiment?" baffles me. Its frustrating to have so much ambiguity - hence the many heated debates. It seems so strange that God would throw so many seemingly scientific contradictions into the mix.

Andrewf20

antiskeptic wrote: »

There is no such argument. At least, not one that could be made by me to you - if that's what you mean.

But if you are asking whether I can be satisfied that the bible couldn't just be the work of men then yes, that is possible. You see, the sequence of events in a person being born again (typically) appears to be as follows:

- the person is saved by God.
- God turns up and makes himself known to the person.

Part of that making himself known involves his coming to dwell within the person through his spirit. The person notices a change in themselves (although at this stage they might not be aware it's God or God of the bible).

And the person has their spiritual eyes opened. And because of that, they can read the bible in a way that they couldn't before. It wouldn't matter if they had been a theologian before they were saved - they still wouldn't have been able to read the actual message of the bible because of spiritual blindness. Someone barely literate/educated .. but born again, would understand very much more of the bibles core messages than the very best lost theologian. It's that stark a difference, spiritual blindness.


Now that they can read it they find described therein the God who they have living inside them. And the two testimonies (God living within and God speaking through his word) come together like two positive waveforms colliding - they join to make an even larger wave form that has the effect of bringing conviction to the person. Conviction that this is true.

And it keeps on going on like that: the more you read of the bible, the more you see how everything you experience of God and everything about the way the world works .. is as described in the bible. And the case it makes for Everything Being The Way It Is is far more elegant and cohesive and harmonious .. than any other explanation you could begin to dream of accessing.

And so, the idea that the bible could have been made up by disparate people over thousands of years - somehow figuring to compile an infinitely complex and harmonious piece of work - becomes an infinitely distant possibility.

Not impossible. But utterly implausible.


The only question is, I suppose, whether you can (begin to) detect the Bible to be something that is infinitely complex and internally /externally harmonious .. and beautiful. If you can't (as I couldn't when I first picked it up on being born again - although I sense I was holding something significant in my hands) then sure, it might well appear like something made up. But if you see it as I now see it?

Not in a month of Sundays..

I think I see what you are getting at. It sounds like our trust in the Bible / afterlife really comes down to our interpretation of it - how plausible are its teachings / writings. I guess its a frame of mind so to speak.

Ive watched numerous online debates between the bigwigs on both sides (Craig vs Hitchens etc) and what baffles me is how there is such a diversity of opinion between 2 seemingly intellegent debaters. For me when Hitchens talks in particular, he seems to make stronger arguments every time - its something I cannot help.

Ive done some travelling to Asia and come across people who seem utterly convinced of their religon (reincarnation and other ideas) and they see their teachings as dogmatic and making complete sense to them. They have had their eyes opened so to speak. But whos right?

Then infinite regress and questions like "what is the point of the afterlife and this life experiment?" baffles me. Its frustrating to have so much ambiguity - hence the many heated debates. It seems so strange that God has thrown so many seemingly scientific contradictions into the mix.

antiskeptic

Andrewf20 wrote: »

I think I see what you are getting at. It sounds like our trust in the Bible / afterlife really comes down to our interpretation of it - how plausible are its teachings / writings. I guess its a frame of mind so to speak.

It's actually a troika-legged stool. Me, as an observer has to reconcile:

- observations about the world outside me

- something within which doesn't strike me as part of me.

- the bible which is not only a stupendous document but is one which adds second voice to the above two legs. It comments on the world around me - most specifically and importantly on the motivation and mind of man (me included) And it speaks with the same voice as the voice I find within - to provide stereo as it were.

There are any number of alternative to the conclusion "God". But God is the neatest, most coherent conclusion of the ones available

Ive watched numerous online debates between the bigwigs on both sides (Craig vs Hitchens etc) and what baffles me is how there is such a diversity of opinion between 2 seemingly intellegent debaters. For me when Hitchens talks in particular, he seems to make stronger arguments every time - its something I cannot help.

I've not watched much of this stuff tbh. Thankfully, a persons salvation doesn't rest on whether someone has a strong apologetic or not. It is God who does the work of salvation and his means are slightly otherwise that plain old arguing someone into his kingdom. Argument is aimed at the intellect. God is after the heart in the first instance.

Ive done some travelling to Asia and come across people who seem utterly convinced of their religon (reincarnation and other ideas) and they see their teachings as dogmatic and making complete sense to them. They have had their eyes opened so to speak. But whos right?

Like I say, I don't think the mechanism of salvation operates at these levels. It looks at something lying deeper. Richard Dawkins referenced an interesting piece of research in his book, The God Delusion. The researchers posed questions at people with a view to finding out about their moral standpoint. The questions where constructed in such a way as to strip out the influence of religion, socio-economic position, country, politics, education, intelligence, sex,etc.. from the answers. And what they found is that people the world over share the same basic moral compass. West or East, North or South - even people from tribes with barely any contact with the outside world had the same moral viewpoint.

I can't remember what Dawkins point was - it probably had something to do with common descent or something. But it also happens to point to a single God who has installed a conscience in the heart of everyman. If he has, and the bible holds that he has, then all men have the same basic equipment with which to answer the question God poses of them: irrespective of their earthly religion, socio-economic position, country, politics, education...


It doesn't matter whose right. What matters is whether God has access everybody with the same question and whether everyone is in a position to answer him - even if they follow the wrong religion. Since a person can follow the wrong religion and still give the right answer to God there isn't an issue that I can see.

Then infinite regress and questions like "what is the point of the afterlife and this life experiment?" baffles me.

The point of this life experiment appears to be one where the children of God are birthed. The point of the afterlife is to be a family. A divine sized version of that most valuable of human pursuits. Just as not every sperm/egg will become a human, not every human will become a child of God.

Its frustrating to have so much ambiguity - hence the many heated debates. It seems so strange that God has thrown so many seemingly scientific contradictions into the mix.

I can't say I'm all that disturbed myself. There isn't a time when the present didn't look down it's nose at the past. It won't be long before the the future will look at the current scientific dogma and smile condescendingly. The ambiguity lies in the fact that folk don't know it all, the argument in the fact they don't know accept that they don't know it all.

Andrewf20

antiskeptic wrote: »

It's actually a troika-legged stool. Me, as an observer has to reconcile:

- observations about the world outside me

- something within which doesn't strike me as part of me.

- the bible which is not only a stupendous document but is one which adds second voice to the above two legs. It comments on the world around me - most specifically and importantly on the motivation and mind of man (me included) And it speaks with the same voice as the voice I find within - to provide stereo as it were.

There are any number of alternative to the conclusion "God". But God is the neatest, most coherent conclusion of the ones available

I've not watched much of this stuff tbh. Thankfully, a persons salvation doesn't rest on whether someone has a strong apologetic or not. It is God who does the work of salvation and his means are slightly otherwise that plain old arguing someone into his kingdom. Argument is aimed at the intellect. God is after the heart in the first instance.

Like I say, I don't think the mechanism of salvation operates at these levels. It looks at something lying deeper. Richard Dawkins referenced an interesting piece of research in his book, The God Delusion. The researchers posed questions at people with a view to finding out about their moral standpoint. The questions where constructed in such a way as to strip out the influence of religion, socio-economic position, country, politics, education, intelligence, sex,etc.. from the answers. And what they found is that people the world over share the same basic moral compass. West or East, North or South - even people from tribes with barely any contact with the outside world had the same moral viewpoint.

I can't remember what Dawkins point was - it probably had something to do with common descent or something. But it also happens to point to a single God who has installed a conscience in the heart of everyman. If he has, and the bible holds that he has, then all men have the same basic equipment with which to answer the question God poses of them: irrespective of their earthly religion, socio-economic position, country, politics, education...

It doesn't matter whose right. What matters is whether God has access everybody with the same question and whether everyone is in a position to answer him - even if they follow the wrong religion. Since a person can follow the wrong religion and still give the right answer to God there isn't an issue that I can see.

The point of this life experiment appears to be one where the children of God are birthed. The point of the afterlife is to be a family. A divine sized version of that most valuable of human pursuits. Just as not every sperm/egg will become a human, not every human will become a child of God.

I can't say I'm all that disturbed myself. There isn't a time when the present didn't look down it's nose at the past. It won't be long before the the future will look at the current scientific dogma and smile condescendingly. The ambiguity lies in the fact that folk don't know it all, the argument in the fact they don't know accept that they don't know it all.

For me, your reply still doesnt satisfy my infinite regress concern. What is the point of this afterlife family? etc etc. In fairness to you, its a question I believe nobody could answer with the current knowledge we have.

Which scientific dogma are you referring to? A common view of science is that it is anti-dogmatic, always willing to be open to question and revision. I buy science magazines on a regular basis and have come across numerous examples where the scientific community have been honest to admit to the possibility of having to "go back to the drawing board" on even some fundamental matters (on trying to understand reasons why the universe expansion is accelerating for example).

You describe the view of the bible (I assume you are reading the modern English version) as a stupendous document. The great ancient philosophers whos many ideas still are well respected today (Socrates / Plato etc), were around hundreds of years BC, so I believe that the intellect of the human mind by the time the bible was written makes it very plausible for humans to put it together. I can see the possibility in Christ being a philosopher with his own view on things, building on the ideas of philosophers before him. It seems to me very possible that the bible borrows alot of philosophical ideas that were around already. You may describe it as harmonious but its messages are sometimes not clear and can go against many peoples moral and logical inclinations - in a way it conflicts with their "conscience in the heart" as you mentioned.

Also, bare in mind that the bible is regarded as been written by humans up to many decades after the resurrection, and also been translated and rewritten by humans throughout the centuries. Misinterpretations have been found, such as the reference to a "virgin" Mary, whereby the original text actually means "young". Perhaps there are other rusty memories, and misinterpretations of the orignal text.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Since a person can follow the wrong religion and still give the right answer to God there isn't an issue that I can see.

Just in relation to my experiences in Asia where a worship of multiple Gods is mentioned, your argument here seems to go against one of the 10 commandments - the dissaproval of the worship of false gods.

Neither of us may fully win this tug of war so to speak, but I find you an interesting person to debate with. : )

antiskeptic

Andrewf20 wrote: »

For me, your reply still doesnt satisfy my infinite regress concern. What is the point of this afterlife family? etc etc. In fairness to you, its a question I believe nobody could answer with the current knowledge we have.

If God is love and the intrinsic nature of love is to express itself unto others (and vice versa) then the point of an eternal family is that love can do it's thing. The point of something doing it's thing lies in it's doing it's thing.

Which scientific dogma are you referring to? A common view of science is that it is anti-dogmatic, always willing to be open to question and revision. I buy science magazines on a regular basis and have come across numerous examples where the scientific community have been honest to admit to the possibility of having to "go back to the drawing board" on even some fundamental matters (on trying to understand reasons why the universe expansion is accelerating for example).

Maybe I'm referring to those of a particular philosophical standpoint who hijack science and in doing so ditch the ever-tentative, non-dogmatism of true science and claim it's current findings ever-fact. Let's call the philososphy 'naturalism'

You describe the view of the bible (I assume you are reading the modern English version) as a stupendous document. The great ancient philosophers whos many ideas still are well respected today (Socrates / Plato etc), were around hundreds of years BC, so I believe that the intellect of the human mind by the time the bible was written makes it very plausible for humans to put it together.

I'm not inclined to suppose the human intellect has ever been any less than it is today. A biblical wisdom I find true is that there is nothing new under the Sun. Althought the detail might change with increasing information, man goes around in basically the same circles. His wants and needs (legitimate and otherwise) don't alter. Nor do the means whereby he goes about satisfying them.

It's a matter of opinion (especially so since we need not assume your understanding of the bible is the same as mine) but I would see the bible as far more stupendous a document than anything Plato ever produced. For more complex, far more penetrative in it's insights into the human experience and assembled by too many minds for it's harmony and coherence to be anything other than divinely directed.

Constitutionally, mankind just isn't up to the likes of the bible. He's not able to work together to produce such harmony (such is his propensity to work in the opposite direction)

I can see the possibility in Christ being a philosopher with his own view on things, building on the ideas of philosophers before him. It seems to me very possible that the bible borrows alot of philosophical ideas that were around already. You may describe it as harmonious but its messages are sometimes not clear and can go against many peoples moral and logical inclinations - in a way it conflicts with their "conscience in the heart" as you mentioned.

One of the central biblical claims is that the heart of man is corrupted hopelessly. That the bible would go against the heart of man at points is to be expected. Much objection stems from the fact that folk assign to themselves the right to judge the God who made them - without really having an idea about the God they are objecting to. Very often I find the model of God used to be that of just another person (typically a Gadaffi/Hussein figure). And that person is judged against the standard we judge all people (which, ironically, stems from God himself )

God is love, God is wrath, God is holy are terms bandied about without really understanding the full extent of what that means. I don't either but when I begin to think of God's righteousness (hatred of evil) I generate images like two grains of sand on a beach arguing about how close each are to the Sun. And have no problem at all with holiness laying waste to sinful nations.

Also, bare in mind that the bible is regarded..

...by some

..as been written by humans up to many decades after the resurrection,

I don't see a problem with the witnesses writing some time after events. The idea is that the bible was written by men under inspiration of God. It's not a natural document so not subject to the same problems that a naturally written document would be subject to.

and also been translated and rewritten by humans throughout the centuries. Misinterpretations have been found, such as the reference to a "virgin" Mary, whereby the original text actually means "young". Perhaps there are other rusty memories, and misinterpretations of the orignal text.

I accept that the version I have now isn't the same as the original due to translational error and the fact of it being impossible to fully translate from one language into another. However, when you're dealing with a very complex mechanism such as that constructed in the bible, where ideas and concepts are found again and again and again in a cross-referencing and internally-supporting way, an error here or there isn't going to collapse the whole.

You might consider the bible as an ancient ocean going vessel. It's sails are showing signs of fraying at the edges, there are barnacles all over the hull, the bilges slop over. But she's not listing and she steers true. And will see her way through the storms to come just as she has the storms of the past.

The bible has been subject to fierce attack since it's formation. Yet everyday the rate of output of new copies in new languages increases. It is and remains the best-selling book in the world. Everyday, millions of people consult it for it's wisdom, comfort and truth not in the least troubled by the kinds of objections you raise.

The truth that causes it to float as well as it does can't be overcome by the relative paltriness of the objections that attempt to sink it. And that's what attracts it's readers: truth. They don't worry about the fact that truth can't be demonstrated to be so by anyone. What they are interested in is what the truth does. Truth (any truth) has the characteristic of tending to free the person from the lies that ensnare them.


For example:

I used to be a nicotine addict. I tried in the ways folk try to quit. And when the willpower ran out I'd be back on the ciggies. Even today, with hi-tech means of quitting, quitting remains a difficult thing for folk to do. As they say on the Nicorette gum packs "Willpower required". Quitting smoking it tough - even the quitting methods say that.

Which is a lie.

I read a book by Allan Carr called The Easy Way to Stop Smoking. All the author did was tell the truth about smoking: why I started, why I continued, why I found it hard to quit, why, despite my thinking I did, I didn't actually get anything positive from smoking and why it isn't actually hard to quit once you understand the nature of the trap of smoking. He repeated this truth again and again in brainwashing fashion to counter the brainwashing that I had been subjected to all my life about how cool smoking was and how, despite it's drawbacks, I was getting some great benefits from smoking. And Hey Presto! I was free. No willpower required to stop and no willpower required to stay stopped. Just truth. The truth about smoking had set me free from the smoking trap. And the same thing goes for all truth. Any truth.


If the bible is setting folk free of more miserable and profound prisons than even cigarette smoking, then they will also know they are encountering truth. Absolute, undeniable truth, just as the truths about smoking I was exposed to were and are undeniable. We are constitutionally enabled to recognise truth (if it is able to penetrate past the smokescreen of the lie). We don't need to be able to prove it to recognise it.

Do you honestly think objections centred on whether the truth was recorded 20, 40. 60 years after Christ is going to impinge on that?

Just in relation to my experiences in Asia where a worship of multiple Gods is mentioned, your argument here seems to go against one of the 10 commandments - the dissaproval of the worship of false gods.

The 10 commandments can be approach in two ways. Or better said, under two covenants. The old convenant means the law must be followed literally. To the letter. You are forbidden to literally bow down before a false god. The new convenant means the law must be followed in spirit. In the heart. The person who bows down in their heart to God is obeying that law in spirit - whatever about what they literally do.


God is interested in the spirit of the law, not the letter. It's what the heart worships and why that interests him. The rest is window dressing.

That's the good news of the new covenant. When you are born again, you're heart will be directed to focus correctly and in spirit, towards God - by God. You cannot but succeed in obeying the new convenant law since it is he who works in you to that end.

Neither of us may fully win this tug of war so to speak, but I find you an interesting person to debate with. : )

It's nice to talk in peaceable fashion. Thanks for that..

The Quadratic Equation

antiskeptic wrote: »

It's nice to talk in peaceable fashion. Thanks for that..

Indeed, he's a diamond amid in the rough all right.
Thank you to both Andrewf20 and Antiskeptic for your intresting discourse.

Andrewf20

Thanks Quadratic equation. : )

antiskeptic wrote: »

If God is love.....

But the bigger infinite regress question remains unanswered - who created God who creates this afterlife? Its a question I have yet to see the bible or science successully answer.

I know the following is going off the topic of the original thread slightly so apologies on this....

Just in relation to the point about the worship of multiple or other gods in other religons, your reply brings me to the following. The bible says you must believe in Jesus to be saved. To me its a very clear message here, yet the Buddists I came across do not - so can we really be sure of their destiny?

Also, in relation to you refering to the bible as coherent etc. Using the 10 commandments as an example, if the commandments can be interpreted as now meaning what it says in the spirit of the law as you suggested, instead of the letter of the law, it sounds to me like - interpret it your own way, hence the ambiguity that reins generally. If a clear objective decision will be made for me in the after life (i.e getting into Heaven or not), I would say I need clear goals that are not open to interpretation. Its like the “Thou shalt not kill” commandment from the Bible. Only 4 words in this commandment. Does this extend to all life? What about killing cows or pigs or plants etc for food?

You mention the old and new covenant and its difference . I now find myself asking, why was there a need for this revision? Its a little suspiscious why modifications were needed. Its suggestive of man made involvement rather than these teachings being divinely inspired.

Hitchens makes in interesting point, for another example - on how the Catholic Church interpreted the Bible in such a way that means unbaptised children are considered damned, and this turned into so much grief and suffering for parents and families who lost children in childbirth. The church apparently has done a bit of a U turn on this recently saying its no longer true. To me this is a clear example of how a lack of coherance can have severally damaging emotional effects in the real world.

Even if the bible makes complete sense to you which I am willing to accept, I guess im trying to get you to understand my rational and others for having doubts about the Bible - how it doesnt always appear harmonious or coherent.

The bible is the worlds best selling book, and I know alot are genuine believers, however I also reckon that a certain proportion of those bible sales happen due to the coercion of children (treats if eternal damnation for not believeing etc) who then grow to adults in a religious family envoironment who then buy the bible due to the effects of pascals wager. Studies have also been done that show individuals can also follow the crowd even if it goes against their own conscience or reasoning (Milgrams experiments). Religons can have good moral guidance but they also appear to rule by fear to a large degree.

antiskeptic

Andrewf20 wrote: »

But the bigger infinite regress question remains unanswered - who created God who creates this afterlife? Its a question I have yet to see the bible or science successully answer.

God isn't created. Everything terminates back at him. Meaning there is no infinite regression.

Just in relation to the point about the worship of multiple or other gods in other religons, your reply brings me to the following. The bible says you must believe in Jesus to be saved. To me its a very clear message here, yet the Buddists I came across do not - so can we really be sure of their destiny?

Does that bible say that? How do you suppose Old Testament characters (whose salvation is taken as a given by Christians) were saved before Jesus walked the earth?

It is true that anyone who is saved is saved through what Jesus did. He pays the price due their sin and opens the way for them to come to the father. And so, an Old Testament character can be saved and his sin laid on Christ. Without his having heard of Christ or believing in him.

Also, in relation to you refering to the bible as coherent etc. Using the 10 commandments as an example, if the commandments can be interpreted as now meaning what it says in the spirit of the law as you suggested, instead of the letter of the law, it sounds to me like - interpret it your own way, hence the ambiguity that reins generally.

It's not that the commandments are now being interpreted differently -since the convenants which utilise the commandments are still in operation.

As a lost person, the old convenant applies to you. It's a "follow these commandments or face the consequences" deal.

As a found person, the new convenant applie to you. It's "follow these commandments or Christ faces the consequences" deal.

If a clear objective decision will be made for me in the after life (i.e getting into Heaven or not), I would say I need clear goals that are not open to interpretation. Its like the “Thou shalt not kill” commandment from the Bible. Only 4 words in this commandment. Does this extend to all life? What about killing cows or pigs or plants etc for food?

Having clear goals wouldn't help you since you're a sinner. Sinners aren't able to obey God's law. It's not in their nature. If you insist on being measured by the old covenant then you'll surely find yourself condemned for failing to adhere to the law.

The law is written in your conscience. You know what's wrong.


The new convenant - the only convenant by which you could enter heaven - doesn't grant heaven based on your ability to achieve goals, clear or otherwise.

You mention the old and new covenant and its difference . I now find myself asking, why was there a need for this revision? Its a little suspiscious why modifications were needed. Its suggestive of man made involvement rather than these teachings being divinely inspired.

As I say above, both covenants are in operation. The old applies to the lost. The new to the found. If you insist on being saddled with the old then that's your choice.

The point of two covenants is to provide you with choice.

Hitchens makes in interesting point, for another example - on how the Catholic Church interpreted the Bible in such a way that means unbaptised children are considered damned, and this turned into so much grief and suffering for parents and families who lost children in childbirth. The church apparently has done a bit of a U turn on this recently saying its no longer true. To me this is a clear example of how a lack of coherance can have severally damaging emotional effects in the real world. /quote]

I'd put that church on a par with Islam. It sells the same false message as Islam does, to wit: you go to heaven or hell based on your adherence (or othewise) to God's laws. I would put about as little stock in what they say as Hitchens does.

Even if the bible makes complete sense to you which I am willing to accept, I guess im trying to get you to understand my rational and others for having doubts about the Bible - how it doesnt always appear harmonious or coherent.

That's understandable. Does the fact (and purpose) of two convenants-still-operation (proffering two options leading to heaven/hell) make more sense than "you've reinterpreted the bible to make the new out of the old"?

The bible is the worlds best selling book, and I know alot are genuine believers, however I also reckon that a certain proportion of those bible sales happen due to the coercion of children (treats if eternal damnation for not believeing etc) who then grow to adults in a religious family envoironment who then buy the bible due to the effects of pascals wager. Studies have also been done that show individuals can also follow the crowd even if it goes against their own conscience or reasoning (Milgrams experiments). Religons can have good moral guidance but they also appear to rule by fear to a large degree.

I'll grant you that. I'm sure many copies of any book can be analysed so and it's readership found wanting to a degree.

Sonics2k

Question.

What happened to all those hundreds of millions of people who were around before the creation of Christianity or even Judaism?

Doesn't really seem fair on them

Sonics2k

That didn't actually answer my question at all.

edit:
Nice ninja delete TQE

antiskeptic

Sonics2k wrote: »

Question.

What happened to all those hundreds of millions of people who were around before the creation of Christianity or even Judaism?

Doesn't really seem fair on them

antiskeptic wrote:

It is true that anyone who is saved is saved through what Jesus did. He pays the price due their sin and opens the way for them to come to the father. And so, an Old Testament character can be saved and his sin laid on Christ. Without his having heard of Christ or believing in him.

For 'an old testament character' insert Adam, Eve, Cain, Abel...etc. They can all be saved through Christ. Christ is the means whereby they can be saved.

There is, in some Christian circles, the view that you have to believe in Jesus Christ and in what he accomplished on the cross in order to be saved. And there are passages which indicate such a thing: that those who believe in Jesus and what he accomplised, are saved.

But there's a difference between that belief being the thing which produces your salvation and something else being the thing which produces your salvation after which you recognise and believe in what Christ accomplished on the cross.

In the former case, the belief is causal in salvation. In the latter case, the belief is consequential (or a consequence) of the person having been saved by something else. I hold to this latter view.

And so, folk can be saved without ever having heard of Christ or Christianity or the Bible, etc.

Andrewf20

antiskeptic wrote: »

God isn't created. Everything terminates back at him. Meaning there is no infinite regression.

For me an answer like this reveals nothing. Granted, like the big bang theory, it is beyond our comprehension perhaps, but your answer adds nothing to the explanation of a God that could not be man made.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Does that bible say that?

In John 3:16, "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." So what is the faith of our Buddist neighbours? People who are not pre Christ and have heard of him.

antiskeptic wrote: »

How do you suppose Old Testament characters (whose salvation is taken as a given by Christians) were saved before Jesus walked the earth? .

I dont know, it is perhaps another example of biblical ambiguity.

antiskeptic wrote: »

The law is written in your conscience. You know what's wrong.

Well, I don’t know what’s wrong - entirely. Do I use my conscience or the bible to decide what’s wrong? I have personal laws written I my conscience for sure, but theres the laws in the bible. The bible sees things as wrong, so do I. Most overlap, some do not – i.e. the bibles views (as I see them) on the endorsement of slavery / attitudes to homosexuality - these are examples of things that go against by my conscience on a massive level.

antiskeptic wrote: »

That's understandable. Does the fact (and purpose) of two convenants-still-operation (proffering two options leading to heaven/hell) make more sense than "you've reinterpreted the bible to make the new out of the old"?
.

Apologies, im not clear on the question here?

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'd put that church on a par with Islam. It sells the same false message as Islam does, to wit: you go to heaven or hell based on your adherence (or othewise) to God's laws. I would put about as little stock in what they say...

But these are the people who really should be in the know (Pope / catholic clergy, who live and preach the bible for a living, the very people that millions of us look up to for moral guidance and biblical understanding) – if they cant make a definite decision on this for example, it suggests again that the bibles message is unclear here, with devastating emotional consequences for some people.

In a nut shell, I guess you see the bible 1 way and I see it another way. As you mentioned before, hopefully God turns up and makes himself known to us all, but for me I am still waiting for that to happen. I feel its beyond my control. What I know for sure is that theres ever mounting tangible scientific evidence which has made itself known to me, so to speak, which goes against alot of biblical teachings. I cant get my conscience to reject the rational.

antiskeptic

Andrewf20 wrote: »

For me an answer like this reveals nothing. Granted, like the big bang theory, it is beyond our comprehension perhaps, but your answer adds nothing to the explanation of a God that could not be man made.

I'm not sure how you arrive where you arrive. God could be man made - it's just that it takes far more of a leap for me to suppose that - given the totality of what I've got to reconcile - than for me to suppose the plain-as-the-nose-on-my-face option true, to wit: God exists.

That God is ever-existent and isn't in need of a cause doesn't alter the basis for my concluding he isn't man made.

In John 3:16, "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." So what is the faith of our Buddist neighbours? People who are not pre Christ and have heard of him.

It's an easy thing to overlook (I do it myself all the time) but when speaking of God we are not speaking about just another thing: laptop, car...God. Rather, we are speaking about the sustainer and source of everything else. This doesn't mean we should consider God pantheistically (God is in everything: he is the car, the laptop..) but it does mean he is more than a discrete object which we can set apart and place in some corner of the universe. His presence pervades our reality.

And so..

In order to consider what "believing in him" might mean we need to consider what Jesus is. He describes himself in numerous ways (as befits someone who is going to pervade our reality in all kinds of ways). He says, for example, that he is the truth. "I am the way, the truth and the life.." He isn't saying that he tells the truth but that he is it.

So. If it is the case that we are made in the image and likeness of God then the truth we speak (when we speak it) is actually something of God being expressed by us. He is occupying that 'space' where the truth is spoken. And the effect the truth has (such as: causing the lie to bring out anger and denial) is in fact, the effect of God on the that which is anti-God ( a lie)

There is lot's more to say on this but for our purposes: if he is the truth and someone believes in him then we are on a way to solution for our Buddhist. For if the Buddhist believes the specific truths that result in his salvation then he is believing in Jesus to that same end (because Jesus is that truth, since Jesus is all truth). This, without his believing in Jesus in a non-salvation related way (such as believing that Jesus walked the earth, for example)

It's worth nothing that the Old Testament way of salvation also involves believing God. Specifically it involved believing in what God said. But since God can speak to the persons mind directly and since God only speaks truth, the Old Testament person believing in what God said is also believing in the truth. And since Jesus is the truth and since Jesus is God...

You can see the significance is Jesus saying he is the truth rather than he just speaks someone elses truth..

Well, I don’t know what’s wrong - entirely. Do I use my conscience or the bible to decide what’s wrong? I have personal laws written I my conscience for sure, but theres the laws in the bible. The bible sees things as wrong, so do I. Most overlap, some do not – i.e. the bibles views (as I see them) on the endorsement of slavery / attitudes to homosexuality - these are examples of things that go against by my conscience on a massive level.

In the Old Testament, a person who couldn't pay their debt sold themselves into slavery - I wouldn't suppose you'd have much objection to that especially when considering that that didn't also mean they were subject to the conditions typically associated with slavery. And there was enslavement as a consequence of warring and losing. The victor (the Israelites) would take the land they had won (such was the way things were done then) and the folk captured would occupy a lower-than-Israelite position in the society. There wasn't anywhere else for them to go, their land wasn't theirs any longer. Conditions weren't as you would suppose of a slave (you could become an influential person in the household (I'm thinking of Joseph rising to Pharoahs right hand))

The above is an example of an objection that might be founded on a misunderstanding of the situation. Your heart (the bit that matters to God) is in the right place however. And it is the heart God judges - not your theological understanding.

Point being: everyone has access to what's right and wrong. God knows the reasons for a persons objection. Everyone can be judged according to the same measure.

Apologies, im not clear on the question here?

You were supposing that Old Testament law had been reinterpreted at a point in time (in the New Testament). I was suggesting that both Old Testament and New viewpoints are:

- in operation simultaneously.
- were always in operations, in Old Testament times and in New and today.

The Old Testament view of the law (eg: thou shalt not steal your neighbour's wife*) applies to the lost (whether they lived in OT times, in NT times and today). If they steal their neighbours wife then they will receive the penalty for it themselves.

The New Testament view of the law applies to the found (whether they lived in OT times, in NT times or today). If they steal their neighbour's wife then Christ will receive the penalty for it on their behalf.

It's the same law: crime attracts punishment. What differs is who gets punished for the crime. The criminal themselves or a substitute.


*Christ (who is God) points out that the law of stealing a neighbour's wife is a wide ranging law. If you lust after someone you've committed that crime.

But these are the people who really should be in the know (Pope / catholic clergy, who live and preach the bible for a living, the very people that millions of us look up to for moral guidance and biblical understanding) – if they cant make a definite decision on this for example, it suggests again that the bibles message is unclear here, with devastating emotional consequences for some people.

The Bible's position is that there are but two kinds of people in the world. The lost and the found. No other distinction matters. It also says that the lost suffer from spiritual blindness - that they cannot see nor understand the things of God.

Is the Pope a Catholic? Is he found? Who knows. If he isn't then all the training in the world won't help him. A barely literate found person in an New Delhi slum would have more insight than he.

Even if the Pope is found and spends his life with his nose in the Bible? It doesn't mean he has more spiritual insight than the slum dweller. God's kingdom is often described as the upsidedown kingdom: it's a place where the humble are elevated (not like our world), it's a place where the last shall be first, where the king himself made himself low so as to serve us (not like our world)

Here too - knowledge comes from relationship with God. Not from theology degrees.


I have been pointing out that God sees the heart. There is nothing the Catholic church can do or say that can stand in between a person and God when it comes to that persons own hearts decision about where they stand on the things God stands for .. and against.

In a nut shell, I guess you see the bible 1 way and I see it another way. As you mentioned before, hopefully God turns up and makes himself known to us all, but for me I am still waiting for that to happen. I feel its beyond my control. What I know for sure is that theres ever mounting tangible scientific evidence which has made itself known to me, so to speak, which goes against alot of biblical teachings. I cant get my conscience to reject the rational.

As I say, God is not so much interested in your theological appreciation as he is your heart. You are right in saying you can't control his turning up. Not in direct way anyway. This doesn't stop him at work. This doesn't stop him searching you to find out where your heart lies.

The common testimony of the found is not that they found God but that God found them. It is his salvation - he is the one that attempts to work his way to you. You don't have to do anything as such. If and when the time comes for your salvation, he'll lead you into it, he'll apply pressure where pressure is required, he'll dissolve whatever objections and boundaries that are holding you back.

It's a great salvation! One that can save even the most dyed in the wool atheist

Pace2008

RufustheKing wrote: »

science also gave us nuclear bombs and nerve gas, whats the point? look at the climate debate. is it warming up or cooling down? we just accept the most popular one without the evidence.

You're getting confused here. The earth's atmosphere most certainly is warming up; no one can really deny that. Annual record showing a steady increase in temperature over the last 100 years, and a sharp rise over the last few decades, can't really be argued with.

The "controversy" is over whether this phenomenon is a result of human activity, or an unavoidable natural occurrence (the planet has gone through warm and cold spells before humans had ever existed), or a combination of both. And this is not decided without evidence - there has been a massive body of evidence collected and collated in recent years, which experts in the field believe points towards an anthropic element to the warming of the earth.

I put "controversy" in inverted commas because the notion that there is no evidence behind Anthropic Global Warming has largely been propagated by organisation who would stand to lost out financially if they were forced to curtail their activities which are thought to contribute to the climate shift, and is readily lapped up by people disgruntled at the idea they might have to alter their lifestyles iun some way, and right-wing types who will rail against anything they perceive as associated with the left as a matter of obligation. It is similar to how creationist have spread the idea that evolution is a hotly contested topic with dubious scientific basis, although while the evidence behind evolution is so great that it is regarded as a fact, climate change is considered by climatologists to be very likely rather than absolutely certain.

Sonics2k

antiskeptic wrote: »

And so, folk can be saved without ever having heard of Christ or Christianity or the Bible, etc.

Then what's the point in the various ceremonies of Christianity? Why do Christians actively seek to convert people to believe in Jesus?

What you're basically saying is that, no matter your background, you can go to Heaven if you're a good person and so on.

So what's the point? Are you saying there are ancient Egyptians, Aboriginals and Native Americans in Heaven?

antiskeptic

Sonics2k wrote: »

Then what's the point in the various ceremonies of Christianity?

What ceremonies do you mean? I know that elective baptism is considered by many Christians to be an outward acknowledgment of something that has gone on within. It has no magical powers or anything.

Why do Christians actively seek to convert people to believe in Jesus?

Although a person can be saved without having heard of Christ, it's to their benefit if their made aware of the fuller story.

What you're basically saying is that, no matter your background, you can go to Heaven if you're a good person and so on.

Background irrelevant. But so too is your moral performance.


I've never said that being good will get you to heaven. Rather, I've said you need to be "born again of the Spirit" (aka "put into Christ" aka "Justified" aka "saved"). Your being a good person has no bearing on whether you obtain that.

So what's the point? Are you saying there are ancient Egyptians, Aboriginals and Native Americans in Heaven?

I'd much rather be a saved person who knew about my salvation than one who didn't. Although preaching the message of the gospel is a means whereby folk are saved, the gospel is a larger mechanism than just it's being preached.

I'd have little doubt that folk from the above places and times are 'in heaven'

Andrewf20

Well Antiskeptic, its been interesting to see the workings of your religous mind. I find I cant agree to alot of it (simply due to the fact that I interpret the Bible in a very different way) and some of your answers still dont make sense to me, but on some things I can see why they could make sense to you. I think the crux of the problem is that without any chance to question and gain clarity from God in the here and now, we are left with our own minds to try and make sense of it all.

I appreciate the time you have put into your posts. Ill buy you a pint if I ever get beyond the pearly gates.