Why Should I or anyone else take Christianity's views on God to be right.

omnicorp

Is my interpretation of God and Religion any more right or wrong than Christianity's?
What right does the Church have to condemn people like Luther, for instance idf thay think something different?
Why are thay "right" and I am "wrong".
Does going to mass make God any happier?

I think people should be able to come up with their own idea of what God is than accepting someone else's interpretation, especially someone who makes money out of their interpretation.

Any one agree?

JustHalf

You say that people should be allowed to come up with their own interpretation of God. Well, of course! Unless we want to have a society without religious freedom, and indeed without the right to freedom of thought... then society must permit each individual to come up with their own interpretation of God.

But ultimately, unless we reject objective reality... unless we say that there is no such thing as truth, that there is only opinion... then we must accept that there is a correct interpretation of God, one that is the true interpretation of God.

Now, I'm not going to say that Christianity is a full and complete understanding of God (the Bible tells us that no-one does), but it is in my opinion the best fit for reality. It's up to you whether or not you accept this, or if you accept something else.

It's also worth mentioning something else. Take a spade in your hand. Is your understanding of this spade complete? Do you know everything about it, from the surface down to the molecular level, and beyond? No. Yet you still call it a spade. You do not call it a crate.

Although you are free to call it a crate, don't expect others to regard your interpretation as being just as valid as theirs.

Canis Lupus

so christianity is a spade....

Excelsior

What I like best about this polemical challenge to Christianity is that you write as if Luther was on your side.

Martin Luther was a Christian though. I know that is a mad idea for you to comprehend but the Roman Catholic Church isn't the end of Christianity.

Yoda

JustHalf wrote:

But ultimately, unless we reject objective reality... unless we say that there is no such thing as truth, that there is only opinion... then we must accept that there is a correct interpretation of God, one that is the true interpretation of God.

I don't believe that these statements hold up to logical scrutiny. (1) Objective realityper se would be measurable verifiably by scientific instruments (though that data would still be made apparent to our minds through our senses. (2) What is truth? (3) There is no reason to accept that any "interpretation" of God could be "correct"; it is reported by Christian (and other) mystics who claim to have had direct content with the Transcendent that it is fundamentally outside the scope of the human mind or human language. (4) Therefore it is hubris at best to claim that any "interpretation" is "true".

The God of Abraham has many attributes in the documents pertaining to him. A number of these are rather contradictory.

This relates to the "." thread, I suppose.

omnicorp

I am questioning why the Church's or any other organisation's interpretation is any more valid than mine or anyone else's

JustHalf

Omnicorp:
You never said "valid". I was talking about accuracy. Say one person believes God exists, and another believes God does not exist at all. God cannot both exist and not exist (because that is just nonsense), so obviously one belief is more accurate, no matter whose it happens to be.

And if you are concerned about the truth of the matter, than the accuracy of your understanding of reality should be the most important thing to you, not who shares that understanding.

There are Christians who are complete asshats. There are non-Christians who are complete asshats. I am confident that, with the possible exception of those faiths practiced by the smallest handful of people, there are members of all faiths that are asshats.

"What is true?" should be your concern, not "Who agrees?".

Yoda:
1: I don't see why objective reality is intrinsically measurable by scientific instruments. Furthermore, unless you believe that our scientific instruments are advanced to their ultimate point (to perfection), then you must conceed that there are things that available instruments cannot measure.

I also can't see why this is relevant. Can you explain this point further?

2: If you want to know the meaning of the word "truth", why not use a dictionary? "Conformity to fact or actuality" is the definition of this particular instance.

3: I don't really understand what you're saying here, but I do have to point out that I never said that Christianity is "correct". I said it was the "best fit for reality". I believe that no human understanding of God can ever fully describe Him, and that we are fallible. But what I believe about God means that He is not entirely indescribable.

The mythical "correct" understanding I talked about would be one which was a total and complete description of God. I didn't say that any particular flavour of Christianity was this.

4: Why the heck have you put the word "interpretation" in quotations? You use quotations a lot in that sentence. It makes it difficult to understand.

bounty

JustHalf wrote:

then we must accept that there is a correct interpretation of God, one that is the true interpretation of God.

Accept this interpretation of God, based on what evidence?

The bible? This type of bullshjt evidence is only sufficient for lazy idiots


No one has any scientific evidence about the creator of the universe. It is a complete unknown

So...

omnicorp wrote:

Is my interpretation of God and Religion any more right or wrong than Christianity's?

No one can interprete anything about the creator with any confidence, even the concept of existing, and anyone who trys, is bullshjtting

omnicorp

Well then, isn't mine as valid as theirs?

neuro-praxis

bounty wrote:

No one can interprete anything about the creator with any confidence, even the concept of existing, and anyone who trys, is bullshjtting

Is that the objective truth, my friend?

neuro-praxis

Omnicorp, what do you mean exactly by "valid" though?

Dictionary.com says this:

1. Well grounded; just: "a valid objection".
2. Producing the desired results; efficacious: "valid methods".
3. Having legal force; effective or binding: "a valid title".
4. Logic.
1. Containing premises from which the conclusion may logically be derived: a valid argument.
2. Correctly inferred or deduced from a premise: a valid conclusion.


Do you want somebody to validate your beliefs for you? Surely you should be doing that yourself. In order to validate a statement, say:

X is pink

for example, it must first be investigated whether or not that is in fact the case. If we establish that yes, in fact, X is pink, then I (or anybody) can validate your statement for you.

If I look at your interpretation of God, or whatever, and do not see logical truth in what you say, then I cannot validate your opinions for you. I do not wish you to validate my beliefs or hold them as valid: I do that for myself.

Point in summary: From a logical perspective, your interpretation of anything relative to anything else is only valid if it is true. Therefore, to answer your original question as to whether or not your interpretation of God is as valid as the church's...well, I don't know. Slap out your interpretation for us!

One's opinion/belief is not validated simply because you hold it.

StupidLikeAFox

omnicorp wrote:

Well then, isn't mine as valid as theirs?

well why are you looking to other people to answer this question for ya?

bounty wrote:

No one can interprete anything about the creator with any confidence, even the concept of existing, and anyone who trys, is bullshjtting

Correction: YOU cant interpret anything about the creator with confidence.

Are you trying to say the pope cannot be 100% convinced of God, virgin mary and all that jazz, from what he has interpreted from his life, experiences, learning etc?

Excelsior

Yoda wrote:

I don't believe that these statements hold up to logical scrutiny.

I got really excited when I read that because I thought you were going to respond with a formal argument. You didn't though. Which is fine, but I would have enjoyed someone stretching the former moderator, JH, instead of simply disagreeing with him.

(1) does not in any way lead into (2). The italicised text in (1) confuses that sentence. I think you are saying that science can tell us how the world is, but I might be wrong. Then in (2) you seem to undermine yourself with a hoary old question about TRUTH, man. This is not the foundation of a logical argument.

Yoda wrote:

(3) There is no reason to accept that any "interpretation" of God could be "correct";

Unless this is an agreement with JustHalf when he tried to batter out an explanation of how God's ways can't be understood by man (Christian, biblical perspective) fully then I don't quite understand how you can hope it will stand. Just Half talked about how man can't have the fullness of God on any topic correct and complete for even a moment but that doesn't mean that we can't know about God (where know is used in a faith context).

For example, I have many reasons to accept what is known as orthodox Christianity as the "correct" interpretation of God. You may not share those reasons. I am not suggesting that both of us are right in our contradictory views.

Yoda wrote:

(4) Therefore it is hubris at best to claim that any "interpretation" is "true".

There can be no therefore since there has been no argument.
Your "x" layout confuses me again. Either something is true or not. That is the essence of truth.

Yoda wrote:

The God of Abraham has many attributes in the documents pertaining to him. A number of these are rather contradictory.

Reference the charter. You will have to take this to a new thread and open it up for discussion. You can't simply state such claims as fact and not expect to back them up. If this seems unfair, here is a really good reason:
I disagree with you. Win me over to your side by convincing me.


To everyone else:

There are many reasons for believing in Christianity that have convinced people to take up belief in Christianity. Not all of them are lazy or stupid or whatever other prejudices were expressed here on this thread.

There are 4 primary reasons in no particular order:
The testimony of the scriptures.
The supernatural testimony of the Holy Spirit.
The examination of the truth claims (the cohesiveness of the meta-narrative).
The example of other people.

omnicorp

then why does Christianity need everything else?

Excelsior

Omnicorp, I want to answer your questions, but I just don't understand what you mean by "everything else"? If you mean traditions, rituals and questions of behaviour that aren't in the bible (such as drinking and contraception) then I'd say we don't need it and they're useless additions.

omnicorp

thats what I mean.
Why do we need them.
Humanity seemed to get along fine without Christianity.

Excelsior

That is where we disagree then.

If you look at the world today I don't think humanity is doing fine. There were 7 genocides in the last 100 years, there are 7 million kids dying annually because of hunger, I'm A Celebrity Get Me Out Of Here attracts viewership. This is not a world where things are just going along fine.

Christianity doesn't say that all the problems are all solved now. What it does say is that man can now be reconciled with God (if God exists and if He cares about you (I know, big ifs!) then this is the biggest problem of all by a massive distance) and in that reconciliation is the hope of a progression in the problems of this world that we are all too familiar with.

It isn't a stupid Scientological utopia that is proposed but a bunch of beggars telling other beggars that there is food and where you can get it.

omnicorp

It's money ruining the world rthen, not religion.
But my point isn't that Religion is ruining the world, rather that people should come up with their interpratation of God rather than take someone else's.

Excelsior

Your assumption is that there is no right interpretation of God. If literally, making your own interpretation of God up is the best way to go, what you are saying is that God has no actual nature Himself. In that case, He doesn't exist. And then we shouldn't be wasting our time making up interpretations.

I have not adopted someone else's interpretation of God. I have have chosen to have faith in the claim that the Bible was the revealed Word of God when originally given. You disagree with that and think the Bible is a purely man-made document without divine inspiration. I don't think that warrants you blanketing a Christian's position as blind adoption of the principles of others.

I mean, we could debate this all night long but there is no such thing as a healthy person who accepts every tenet of their church's teaching without reservation. Look at the many debates that go on in theological journals or clergy meetings or in the pews on a Sunday. There is not uniformity. Instead, in a healthy church, there is unity around the central core belief that Jesus is God and all that entails. That belief must be a combination of head and heart working together if it is ever going to mean anything and that can't happen if it is just learning off by heart what authority figures have taught.

StupidLikeAFox

omnicorp wrote:

It's money ruining the world rthen, not religion.
But my point isn't that Religion is ruining the world, rather that people should come up with their interpratation of God rather than take someone else's.

Question: Are ya looking for answers to these questions, because ya seem fairly sure of what ya believe? Like whats your point?

Mazikeen

Reading through some of the waffle in this thread, I'd have to say that omnicorp's view of God is not necesseraly true, but then again neither is that proposed by Christianity - neither view has established itself logically here to be true (although, even by chance either still could be).

So philosophically, omnicorp is no more "right" or "wrong" than Christianity, given the arguments made here.

omnicorp

That was my point.

Canis Lupus

Mazikeen wrote:

Reading through some of the waffle in this thread, I'd have to say that omnicorp's view of God is not necesseraly true, but then again neither is that proposed by Christianity - neither view has established itself logically here to be true (although, even by chance either still could be).

So philosophically, omnicorp is no more "right" or "wrong" than Christianity, given the arguments made here.

But whats yur point then apart from pointing out the obvious?

Mazikeen

Canis Lupus wrote:

But whats yur point then apart from pointing out the obvious?

That no one really addressed the original question and simply waffled on tangental issues.

StupidLikeAFox

The thread title was - "Why Should I or anyone else take Christianity's views on God to be right?" but in effect noone told the guy to take Christianitys views.

Pointless thread tbh

Canis Lupus

agrees with colhol its why I don't post often in here anymore as it's somewhat akin to a dog chasing its' tail.

Always in black

Accept this interpretation of God, based on what evidence?

The bible? This type of bullshjt evidence is only sufficient for lazy idiots


No one has any scientific evidence about the creator of the universe. It is a complete unknown

So...


Quote:
Originally Posted by omnicorp
Is my interpretation of God and Religion any more right or wrong than Christianity's?



No one can interprete anything about the creator with any confidence, even the concept of existing, and anyone who trys, is bullshjtting

---

Last edited by bounty : 13-12-2004 at 06:


isint this where the whole "faith" idea kicks in?!!

omnicorp

But science cannot prove that there is NOT a creator.
Where does that leave us

Danno

There is only one truth, not some Churches' views or some person's view. For many of history's problems arise when one or both of the above FORCE their view across, usually for power or money (or both).

The truth is in the Bible.

That is the only correct view of God, for He instructed for it to be written the way He wanted.

StupidLikeAFox

omnicorp wrote:

But science cannot prove that there is NOT a creator.
Where does that leave us

What the hell are ya looking for us to say?

Make up your own goddam mind ffs

Mazikeen

Danno wrote:

The truth is in the Bible.

That is the only correct view of God, for He instructed for it to be written the way He wanted.

Did He then? What if He didn't though? You're assuming that He instructed for it to be written the way He wanted, or frankly had anything at all to do with it. Of course you can have the faith to believe that He instructed for it to be written the way He wanted, but that would be no better or worse than omnicorps belief in whatever he fancies himself.

omnicorp

If God wrote the Koran and the Bible and the Torah and the Buddhist scriptures, why isn't there one big religious party?

Because humans wrote them!

StupidLikeAFox

No shít? The belief is that He appeared and instructed the guys to do it

neuro-praxis

One should really only believe things that one believes to be true.

Whether you believe them to be true based on reliable authority or on personal experience it doesn't really matter. Most of us spend our lives believing things to be true on the basis that others have told us it is so.

Think about that.

I think that about sums it up.

omnicorp

Religious Submission is an example.
He says, therefor it is

StupidLikeAFox

and Papal Infallibility

But to each his own, just because people question that someone/thing is right doesnt make them/it wrong

neuro-praxis

You misunderstood me, guys.

What I was trying to express is that it is very often a very reasonable thing to accept truth based on a reliable authority.

Probably none of you have ever been badly burnt by a fire. But why do you not stick your heads in the fire every night? Because you have been told since you were babies that this would burn you.

You do not know for sure that this is true (never having been burnt) but you trust that it is true.

Likewise, you probably read a few articles in the Irish Times today recounting the events of the day. You do not know that they are true, but decide that they are true because your source was reliable.

Are you following me now?

omnicorp

But, if I jumped out on a Marathon doing a jig saying that Paganism was true and that god was a gi8ant pop tart, I'd be wrong.

StupidLikeAFox

yeah, you'd be an asshole, but doesnt say your beliefs are wrong

neuro-praxis

Omnicorp, you don't seem to be listening.

Whether or not madmen say untrue things does not change the fact that all humans live their lives based on trusting what others say. It is necessary.

And please note that I said RELIABLE AUTHORITY. Mad people who make up fairy stories are not reliable authorities.

...I give up.

StupidLikeAFox

neuro-praxis wrote:

And please note that I said RELIABLE AUTHORITY. Mad people who make up fairy stories are not reliable authorities.

Why not? Sure werent people convinced Van Gogh was mad and he wasnt appreciated fully til years after his death. Same with many poets and scientists.
So like, just because a guy is deemed mad doesnt nec. mean his beliefs should be cast aside!










(getting deep now )

JustHalf

Not really, ColHol. I was going to expand on what Neuro-Praxis has said, but I think that it's difficult to do so without simply repeating her.

I for one have never seen my internal organs, but I trust they are there. I've been reliably informed by scientists that I do, in fact, have internal organs.

A doctor removed my appendix. Allegedly. I didn't see him do this, I was unconscious at the time. I was in surgery. Allegedly. It's possible nothing was wrong with me, and they just drew a scar on my belly with some magic scar pen.

But I assume he did, because it is impossible to live a life without trusting anything. You'd be worse than the creationists!

StupidLikeAFox

Oh yeah i agree totally, bout reliable authorities and all. But where do ya draw the line about who is mad and who isnt. Like millions of people will claim George Bush to be Evil, but millions more would worship him

omnicorp

But, if God wrote the Koran and the Bible etc. Why all the religious squabble?
It the same God.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

I have a pointless question about christianity to ask that I think will make me look really clever. Is this the right thread for it?

omnicorp

There's no other thread, as I pointed out, this forum is without one, but I think a spiritualty forum is on the line.

StupidLikeAFox

omnicorp wrote:

But, if God wrote the Koran and the Bible etc. Why all the religious squabble?
It the same God.

So you dont see it as possible? Well there ya go then

ColHol, telling people what they already know since 2005

omnicorp

No, I do think it is possible, but, if he did write all these things, why has science beeen able to prove so many things in the bible wrong

StupidLikeAFox

seriously, isnt that something your gonna hafta decide upon for yourself?

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

because god didn't pick up a pen and write the bible, he wrote it through his human ... advocates. And humanity is fallable.

there, christian excuses 101. is there something you're trying to prove with this thread?

ferdi

off topic question:

If there was some sort of a random trial/court case and the circumstances fitted, could The Bible ever be used as evidence to prove something?