Thread: For An Intelligent Conversation On Spirituality/Religion

Originally Posted by jockeys

dunno how I missed this before, but I have to say that I wholeheartedly agree. the founding document of any religion must be atomic (in the computer science sense of the word) or the whole thing unravels.

I have to disagree with ya jockey, if all world religious books are deemed "books of advice" then you should be able to find bits of usefull information in them in the form of allegory or simple advice. I would say that all religious books have some good advice in there somewhere, and also many imperfections.

The imperfections are what make religions differnent, all on different paths to the top of the mountain. Wheras @ god(the mountain top) they all converge into the same thing.
Religions are just like tour guides(and often corrupt tour guides), take away the tour guides and the mountaintop is still there.

Anyway the idea that those books either have everything to teach you or nothing to teach you doesnt make sense as they must have some good advice, I can think of serveral bilbical stories that teach simple lessons that are usefull. Like that one where the old lady gives a little bit from the little she has and the rich man gives more than her but little compaed to what he has. You could rip that small story out of the bible and use it on its own as a wise piece of information.

I was brought up catholic but i am not one now, i never belived in god and didnt listen to anything told to me as a kid about it. But i still remember the stories and some of them are wise and usefull. At the moment I do think there is a god who is consciousness like we are.

Anyway all them books from all around the world are just like human bodies. They may not be 100% perfectly healthy but can still be partialy functional. Most peoples bodies are not 100% as perfectly healthy as possible but they still are functional to a certain percent. I would say the same is true of all the books that exist on a planet where that is true of all the people writing these books.
As for books written by god I dont know, the bible seems to have had some editing along the way(council of nicea). The closest thing that looks like god may have said it is an indian book called the bhagavad gita which explains alot of good advice, but again written/spoken by god i dont know.

Well my advice is to take good advice from wherever you can find it and not to get hung up on where it is found , even if it means a christian leaving one of their books to go elswhere or an athiest dipping in and taking a few bits from the bible. As long as your not bending truth to fit your own wishes then it should serve you well. Something as usefull as truth should never be bent, the same way a usefull razor shouldnt be bent as its gonna be more hassle to fix it.

Originally Posted by GregJDS

I have to disagree with ya jockey, if all world religious books are deemed "books of advice" then you should be able to find bits of usefull information in them in the form of allegory or simple advice. I would say that all religious books have some good advice in there somewhere, and also many imperfections.

The imperfections are what make religions differnent, all on different paths to the top of the mountain. Wheras @ god(the mountain top) they all converge into the same thing.
Religions are just like tour guides(and often corrupt tour guides), take away the tour guides and the mountaintop is still there.

Anyway the idea that those books either have everything to teach you or nothing to teach you doesnt make sense as they must have some good advice, I can think of serveral bilbical stories that teach simple lessons that are usefull. Like that one where the old lady gives a little bit from the little she has and the rich man gives more than her but little compaed to what he has. You could rip that small story out of the bible and use it on its own as a wise piece of information.

I was brought up catholic but i am not one now, i never belived in god and didnt listen to anything told to me as a kid about it. But i still remember the stories and some of them are wise and usefull. At the moment I do think there is a god who is consciousness like we are.

Anyway all them books from all around the world are just like human bodies. They may not be 100% perfectly healthy but can still be partialy functional. Most peoples bodies are not 100% as perfectly healthy as possible but they still are functional to a certain percent. I would say the same is true of all the books that exist on a planet where that is true of all the people writing these books.
As for books written by god I dont know, the bible seems to have had some editing along the way(council of nicea). The closest thing that looks like god may have said it is an indian book called the bhagavad gita which explains alot of good advice, but again written/spoken by god i dont know.

Well my advice is to take good advice from wherever you can find it and not to get hung up on where it is found , even if it means a christian leaving one of their books to go elswhere or an athiest dipping in and taking a few bits from the bible. As long as your not bending truth to fit your own wishes then it should serve you well. Something as usefull as truth should never be bent, the same way a usefull razor shouldnt be bent as its gonna be more hassle to fix it.

This is where the difficulty comes in. A Christian believes the Bible is the truth and if made to say anything other than what it says'[IN CONTEXT], is bending the truth.

Also nowadays truth has become relative and why, in my opinion because some became uncomfortable with it so it is now what makes one comfortable. Example[ it may be true for you but not for me ]
No truth is Truth.. Now I know what i am going to get. Who decides? right? That's where Christians have their God, An all knowing being.

Just for fun let's take God out of the bible. How many think the world would be a more sociable, peaceful,equitable place if the commandments [less the worship ones] just the man to man ones, were followed?

Originally Posted by paco

This is where the difficulty comes in. A Christian believes the Bible is the truth and if made to say anything other than what it says'[IN CONTEXT], is bending the truth.

I would take issue with that statement. While most Christians may agree with you, there are many Christians who do not take the bible as the literal truth. Some believe that parts of it are downright wrong.

Originally Posted by joesixpack

I would take issue with that statement. While most Christians may agree with you, there are many Christians who do not take the bible as the literal truth. Some believe that parts of it are downright wrong.

Again i must say they are only professing to be christian because saying it is not the truth would be calling their God a LIAR. See 2 Timothy 3:16
and a Christian believes his GOD.

Last bit of insite, and this is not singling out anyone here just a general statement:

FOR THOSE WHO WON'T BELIEVE THERE IS NO EXPLANATION; FOR THOSE WHO DO NO EXPLANATION IS NECESSARY.

Originally Posted by paco

Again i must say they are only professing to be christian because saying it is not the truth would be calling their God a LIAR. See 2 Timothy 3:16
and a Christian believes his GOD.

This is called the "No true Scotsman" or the Self sealing fallacy. (No true Scotsman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) You're judging "Christians" by your own definition. Many Christians have a different definition, some that would even exclude you.

Another problem is that you're arguing that the Bible supports it's own infalibility, yet another christian who feels the Bible may be in error couldn't accept that assertion.

Here's something else to think on. Consider these two statements; A)"the Bible is either all true, or it's not", & B)"the Bible is either all true, or it's all false". These two statements are not the same. In the case of "A", there is still the possibility of some of the bible being true, though some of it is false. Statement "B" says that if one thing in the bible is false, it negates the truth of every other statement in there. I think many Christians would agree with statement "A", that if something in the bible were shown to be wrong, it would not really undermine their faith. Would it undermine yours?

Originally Posted by joesixpack

This is called the "No true Scotsman" or the Self sealing fallacy. (No true Scotsman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) You're judging "Christians" by your own definition. Many Christians have a different definition, some that would even exclude you.


The problem is that you're arguing that the Bible supports it's own infalibility, yet another christian who feels the Bible may be in error couldn't accept that assertion.

Here's something else to think on. Consider these two statements; A)"the Bible is either all true, or it's not", & B)"the Bible is either all true, or it's all false". These two statements are not the same. In the case of "A", there is still the possibility of some of the bible being true, though some of it is false. Statement "B" says that if one thing in the bible is false, it negates the truth of every other statement in there. I think many Christians would agree with statement "A", that if something in the bible were shown to be wrong, it would not really undermine their faith. Would it undermine yours?

I would have to say YES because then my Infallable GOD would be fallible, however with all the talk of possible mistakes then the showing of something it states as being incorrect may not reflect the author but maybe the translator.

So my point iS being made from the view that the ORIGINAL TEXTS were the inerent word of God as stated here: 2 Peter 2 :20-21 ²⁰But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, ²¹for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

Now to accept this one must believe in God and His Word. again FOR THOSE WHO WON'T BELIEVE IN GOD NO EXPLANATION IS POSSIBLE ; AND FOR THOSE WHO DO BELIEVE NO EXPLANATION IS NECESSARY.

Originally Posted by paco

So my point iS being made from the view that the ORIGINAL TEXTS were the inerent word of God as stated here: 2 Peter 2 :20-21

What if the unfaillability part is a mistake that is not present in the original? You will be completely wrong and dogma can't get you back on the right track at all.

Originally Posted by joesixpack

This is called the "No true Scotsman" or the Self sealing fallacy. (No true Scotsman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) You're judging "Christians" by your own definition. Many Christians have a different definition, some that would even exclude you.

Another problem is that you're arguing that the Bible supports it's own infalibility, yet another christian who feels the Bible may be in error couldn't accept that assertion.

Here's something else to think on. Consider these two statements; A)"the Bible is either all true, or it's not", & B)"the Bible is either all true, or it's all false". These two statements are not the same. In the case of "A", there is still the possibility of some of the bible being true, though some of it is false. Statement "B" says that if one thing in the bible is false, it negates the truth of every other statement in there. I think many Christians would agree with statement "A", that if something in the bible were shown to be wrong, it would not really undermine their faith. Would it undermine yours?

No, I defer to my God's Word believing HIM to be all knowing and infallible.

Originally Posted by paco

This is where the difficulty comes in. A Christian believes the Bible is the truth and if made to say anything other than what it says'[IN CONTEXT], is bending the truth.

Actually. According to your definition....the apostles weren't Christians....because there was no new testament yet. In fact by your definition anyone living BEFORE the new testament was compiled (because it wasn't written as a book, bible means BOOKS, it's a compilation of writings compiled by people living a long time AFTER the writers had passed away) is not a Christian.

I'll just go by the definition that Paul the apostle and the other apostles used....Christian=follower of Christ.

Just like a Buddhist (flip, don't think I spelled that right) is a follower of Buddha and a Muhammedan is a follower of Muhammed.

It has NOTHING to do with what scripture you believe in or even if you don't believe in scripture at all.

It's defined by whom you're trying to emulate.

If I'd be trying to emulate Obama, I'd be an Obamaian.

Originally Posted by paco

How many think the world would be a more sociable, peaceful,equitable place if the commandments [less the worship ones] just the man to man ones, were followed?

do you mean

FIVE: 'Honor your father and your mother.'

SIX: 'You shall not murder.'

SEVEN: 'You shall not commit adultery.'

EIGHT: 'You shall not steal.'

NINE: 'You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.'

TEN: 'You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's.'

Seems to me that 6-9 are in pretty much every judicial system, so I'm thinking they're fairly basic for our functional societies. That would suggest they are not particularly exclusive to the Christian God. As far as 5 goes, I would submit that this seems lot more prevalent in non-christian cultures, or could be a result from not a very developed society.

So, sure, if people abide by these general rules life would be much nicer, but I don't see what that's got to do with Christianity. Some 3500 years later it seems that all societies still have to rely on punitive action to enforce these things.

Of course in our time we've deemed some other things to be equally or more important, i.e. do not have sex with people younger than certain age, have a single husband/wife, etc.. None of these seem to have been as important to God as honoring one's parents or not wanting somebody else's property. But in our society pedophilia is deemed much bigger offense than say theft or insult. Looks like we can't really take a very Biblical approach to life anymore.