Bigthink - Idea Comments Feed

Comment on: Interpreting Scripture

Bigthink — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 22:58:09 +0100

In addition, Disillusioned Words, first of all if God exists then yes he is quite a bastard, and his manic depressive emotional cycles are recorded in all religious texts (which you obviously never bothered to read) and secondly what I was pointing out via my big words, and small difficult words, was that traditional belief systems are not completely garbage, but provide a few values we can build on with science.

Comment on: Interpreting Scripture

Bigthink — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 22:49:27 +0100

Disillusioned Words: Nothing is true, your faults fuck you, world-wide slavery is brand-fucking new.

Comment on: Interpreting Scripture

Bigthink — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 02:49:17 +0100

L and G,
Lost and groping? Just another theological twister trying to rationalise the irrational. Odd how you claim to know the mind of this God of yours? based on what? and why should I believe you? very many earnest and bright Muslims say you're wrong, so do many Jews... and that's only amongst those of you who share the same God... let's not mention the other half of the planet who wouldn't know JC from a hole in the ground! maybe you could get some agreement amongst yourselves before you post your various pretzel logic arguments and foist them on others.
and while your at it... a few questions..
Why does this Dog of yours make a Universe so ifinitely amazing and beautiful, when to an unimaginable degree it will remain unknown to us? you say he made it for us! bit of overkill there really? he could have stopped at the Milky Way, maybe he was bored that Saturday and just kept going?
some design!
You say he 'sacrificed' his only 'son'? well, not much of a sacrifice when he's going to live in paradise forever with you anyway? why 'only' son? did he get a vasectomy after JC? There's an episode of ER you won't see.
and according to your team mates, the 'end-time' Christians, it will all be over 'soon' anyway, so why bother with all this creation stuff, I guess the rest of the Universe can be done away with once the chosen reach paradise?
Dear L and G, when you resolve you differences with your fellow believers and agree which is literal, and which is metaphorical, get back to me. I won't hold my breath for any starling insights, as that has been beyond the wit of religion to manage until now, and I don't see it getting any better? Unlike you I remain
open to a better argument, but I like facts and evidence, so I guess that's a little beyond a philosopy that makes 'faith' a virtue and a pile of primitive writings so full of malice, bile, racism, misogyny, that it needed a PR job with a fuzzy headed do-gooder like 'Jesus'to gain any traction as enlightenment chipped away the more extreme edges of religiously dominated societies.
I see no evidence for God, I do see a heap of evidence of a search for meaning, and most of it pathetic in it's paucity of vision. In a Universe so startling and wonderful and (even) trancendent, with the beauties of art and literature and music and love all around us.... if this is still the best you can do, give up.

Comment on: Interpreting Scripture

Bigthink — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 23:27:57 +0100

bonell, you are correct in that it doesn't make any sense that God would love us enough to go to such great lengths to repair the relationship with Him that our sin had broken. And, you are also correct that Jesus never abolished the moral apsects of the Law. As I stated in the previous response the true Christian still follows the relational and behavioral teachings of Scripture but he/she does so not because it is an oppressive external standard, but as a love repsonse of gratitude toward God for the gift of His Son. Forgiveness is not so much "preemptive" as it is incarnational. That is the spirit of forgivenss (in the person of Christ) comes to indwell the authentic believer so that he/she no longer desires to act immorally or "unBiblically." That is not to say that they never fail,(or that everyone who claims to be "Christian" actually is) but that the general impulse of their will is changed to that of good. It is important to note, however, that the gift of forgiveness is not indiscrimanently showered on all humanity, but rather is received by those who desire it,turn from their sin and self righteousness, and surrender their lives to Christ. Jesus never forces a relationship on anyone. He merely offers it(to do anyting else would not be a relationship but forced slavery). But, He does withold the right to offer it on His terms. Since He died on the Cross for our forgiveness He is more than worthy of that perogative.....
Disillusioned, you are also correct in that God is omnipotent, omniscient, etc... And, He could choose to manipulate His creatures to behave exactly and precisely as He desired. However, if He chose to do so it would be impossible to have a love relationship of any real merit. Rather it would be the mere existance of an automaton devoid of authentic interaction. Therefore He created man with free will. Free will choice is always foundational in a loving relationship. Given that free will, however, men chose to rebel against God, i.e. sin. Sin brought suffering, pain, sorrow, death, and most importantly alienation from the God who created us. The whole point of Heaven is the oppotunity for eternal relationship with God without sin to inflict pain. But, the relationship must begin with a free will choice to reject sin and embrace Christ. Could God have created an entirely different system? Sure! But if man is to believe in a "higher being" at all, he must concede at some point that said "higher being" knows best. And therein lies the rub. Man, enamored with his own intellect and abilities, and inflamed with his own desire, is notoriously hesitant to admit that there is Anyone (or anything)greater than himself. This he does because he knows instinctively that should he admit the existence of such a Being he would by necessity have to defer. Also, God clearly does not want mankind to suffer in Hell. The Bible states that He doesn't want any to perish, but for all to come to repentance(that is admit personal sin, reject it, and commit their life into His loving hands). In short, He gave free will so that a genuine relationship could exist. We have chosen to go our own way and to rebel against His clear (and superior) teaching. In spite of that, He loved us and was willing to personally pay the penalty that our "lawbreaking" deserves. He hates sin. He hates it because it brings pain and sorrow, but to disallow sin would be to eradicate choice. To eradicate choice would destroy authentic relationship and such a relationship is what He died on the cross to seek.

Comment on: Interpreting Scripture

Bigthink — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 23:10:54 +0100

So "God" gave his only son to sacrifice him for our sins? So he is he appeasing by doing so? And what of his omnipotence? An all powerful being, who is also all-seeing, must want things to be exactly as they are, or they would automatically change to what his will is. For this being to be omnipotent and omniscient, he cannot be benevolent, as he would already know who is going to hell. Since he knows ahead of time (omniscience) that they will commit sins and doesn't stop them from doing them and going to hell, he must want them to suffer. For it to be otherwise would render all our definitions of these words absurd. If our definitions are absurd, language itself breaks down and becomes meaningless. If language is meaningless, the Bible is meaningless. If the Bible is meaningless, God is meaningless.

Check out: www.disillusionedwords.com

P.S. Jordan, you said nothing. Fancy wording does not equal meaning.

L and G, read all of "End of Faith"

Comment on: Interpreting Scripture

Bigthink — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 21:35:43 +0100

L and G, your response does not make any sense. Jesus himself said we should live our lives according to the mandate set forth in the Old Testament. So regardless of whether or not he bore our sins, we should be living our lives according to the Old Testament. Also, let us assume that what you say is true. What of the stories that do not dictate morals. Are we to take Noah's Arc literally? How could you read such a story in a book that claims to be non-fiction, and not take it literally? What of Abraham being ready to sacrafice his son because God asked him to? We are supposed to revere these people, regardless of whether or not we are still following such barbarisms. I have no respect for a God that would demand sacrafices, for men who would follow the word of a God who demands such sacrifices, and people who revere the men who made the sacrafices demanded by God. And in what way can such stories be taken metaphorically? It is also interesting that you say Jesus bore our sins and therefore these old penal codes and barbaric laws are obsolete. So then what is the Christian argument against homosexuality if homosexuals have had their sins preemptively forgiven? For that matter, against your argument I have a question that Christians offer to atheists: If our sins are preemptively forgiven by a "forgiving" creator and the sacrafice of his only son, what is our reason for behaving acceptably in a just society? As somebody who has some understanding of evolutionary psychology, I know what the answer is from a secular point of view. But what of people who believe that Jesus ensured them a spot in heaven no matter what they do here on earth? If you say the same psychological processes that psychology implies apply to these believers, then what need was there for the sacrafice of Jesus in the first place?

Comment on: Interpreting Scripture

Bigthink — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 19:58:34 +0100

Having said that, I am quite interested in what is less than fiction: philosophy. Philosophers are the necessary laborers working towards what really matters. And what I believe really matters is the development of compelling and beautiful originality.

Comment on: Interpreting Scripture

Bigthink — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 19:50:41 +0100

Jesus talked of fairness, but misjudged the mathematics required.

Moses talked of morality, but misjudged the physics required.

Muhammad talked of belief, but misjudged the architecture required.

Plato talked of success, but misjudged the management required.

Nietzsche talked of power, but misjudged the history required.

Shankara talked of justification, but misjudged the ecology required.

Siddhartha talked of improvement, but misjudged the agriculture required.

Marx talked of socialization, but misjudged the economics required.

These individuals are truly obsolete, but they continue to be prominent.

The literature of these individuals is even less than fiction.

Comment on: Interpreting Scripture

Bigthink — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 20:28:34 +0100

The Bible is to be interpreted literally where it is literal and figuratively where it is obvioulsy using symbolism, typology, etc. . . Additionally, one must be familiar enough with the whole book to understand its teachings. For example,in regard to the application of Levitical laws, one must take into account the ramifications of Jesus' sacrifice. There were basically three aspects to the Mosaic law. Ceremonial (which were designed to foreshadow the coming of the Messiah and his work of redemption)Penal (punishment inflicted on the basis of religious authority for the breaking of the law) and Moral (directives as to how to live in such a way as to be fitting representatives of the people of God). Jesus' coming rendered the need for observance of the ceremonial aspects (designed to picture His coming) moot. Jesus' sacrifice to serve as the substitute for man's sins satisfied the necessity of enforcing penal codes in a religious sense (a duty now transferred to the Government, see Romans 13). Jesus' teachings reinforced the efficacy of the moral (behavioral) aspects of the law and revealed that His followers (those who have repented of their sins and trusted in Him) would live by these commands not because they exist as an external standard, but because they are written on the heart of the true believer. Therefore, it is not that Christians conveniently "ignore" such teachings, but rather embrace what Jesus clearly taught, i.e. that He has become the "sin-bearer" in the offenders place.