[Closed] "I asked God to help me"

I'm looking forward to badnewz returning and demonstrating just how deeply the "faith" meme can sink it's hooks and prevent the understanding that a penguin is not a grapefruit, despite the best efforts of rationalists (such as the heroic Cougar) to help.

non believer " why do you say we have to do this?"
Believer "'cos it says so in the bible"
NB " do we have to do everything it says in the bible" ( point about gays/ abomination)
B " no we can pick and chose bits"
NB "how do yo know which bits to obey then?"

You choose the bits you like. Once you decide that the bible isn't the inerrant word of God then it's perfectly valid to interpret it as you see fit.

Biblical inerrancy is NOT a central tenet of Christianity. I get the impression TJ that you are not particularly knowledgeable in this area.

The sloughing off of the "bad" bits of the chosen "Holy Book" always follows the advances of secular morality.

This happens slowly though, as religion is highly resistant to change from outside it's boundaries in the society or wider secular landscape in which it squats.

Molgrips - you miss the points.

some Christians claim the bible is the literal word of god

However if you accept

Once you decide that the bible isn't the inerrant word of God then it's perfectly valid to interpret it as you see fit.

this is the crux of a major logical fallacy.

You cannot say - this bit can be ignore and this but must be obeyed with any intellectual rigour and honesty. its either eh word of god or it is not - if you can ignore some bits then what is to stop you ignoring other bits you find inconvenient - like a rich man getting into heaven for example - Cameron claims to be a Christian but he is a tax avoiding multimillionare. Incompatible with Christ teaching.

this is the crux of a major logical fallacy.

No it isn't, its one tiny spin off, of millions, that hail down from the enormous logical fallacy of beliving in soemthing that no one prove exists, becasue no non can prove it doesnt exist. See the wood man not the trees.

[I think Teej has me on his ignore/blocklistthingy]

No it isn't, its one tiny spin off, of millions, that hail down from the enormous logical fallacy of beliving in soemthing that no one prove exists, becasue no non can prove it doesnt exist.

I don't understand this sentence.

@Toys19

Your posts are simply nasty and unbecoming. There are plenty of representatives of both sides of the 'God debate' on this forum - and this thread in particular - but on the few occasions I have dropped in to see what's going on, your words have been nothing but ad hominem attacks on believers.

Grow up.

Or maybe you'd like to travel to the forests of South America and explain to the native tribes that believe in some metaphysical reality beyond what they see how they are either 'mentally deficient, disingenuous, or deluded'.

You are acting like a fundamentalist, imperialist prick not dissimilar to the way in which you cast 'god-botherers'.

I never thought I would say this, but Mr Woppit, whose views on religion have been made plenty clear in past debates is a model of charity compared to you.

Down with this sort of thing.

sorry written in haste, I'll attempt a rewrite:

No it isn't, its one tiny spin off, of millions, that hail down from the enormous logical fallacy of beliving that god exists purely because there is no way of proving that he doesnt exist. (that despite the fact that science (which is essentially the whole basis of human logic and technology and understanding of the universe around us) relies on proof of existence not proof of non existence, and there is no evidence to prove god exists)

People believed there was a god before the bible was written down so I'm not sure that the bible is why people believe

TJ. The issue was wether the Bible is the thing that makes people believe in god.

Your comments about picking bits of the bible are irrelevant to that.

The issue was wether the Bible is the thing that makes people believe in god.

I've heard, usually Christians in the US to be fair, respond to "why do you think this" with "because it says so in the Bible."

If I were a betting man though, I'd hazard that this isn't strictly true. They probably believe in god because it's been hammered into them throughout their childhood.

Anecdotally, the circular reasoning of using god and the bible as mutual proof of each other does seem to be a largely stateside approach IME.

@ saxon rider, thanks I hadn't intended on being becoming to you in any way, my experience and that of millions of others is that religion is nasty, or results in nastiness. And your south american peoples? Well this is exactly what they are

deluded

very poorly informed/brainwashed

Well, luckily, earlier I defined anyone who believes in a god/gods as either stupid, emotionally retarded, mentally ill, very poorly informed/brainwashed or just disingenuous.

There have been plenty of ad hominen attacks on both sides. Ad hominem as you know is a logical fallacy, but frankly it is neccesary because unfortunatly logic is failing here as people are either ignoring logic or are

stupid, emotionally retarded, mentally ill, very poorly informed/brainwashed or just disingenuous.

the the bible no longer has any legitimacy as it is all down to interpretation by fallible humans.

This has been discussed for thousands of years, seriously. Perhaps do some reading around? You make valid points, but again the same ones that have been made a million times before. One of the features of Christianity seems to be a certain amount of flexibility.

Logically speaking, if you consider the bible to be the work of man but inspired by God, then you may read the bible and look for God's message in it. It's not unreasonable to expect words of some value to be in there.

As I understand it the Jewish tradition is one of intellectual discourse and writing, and the bible is made up of these writings. That's why it's made up of books that have people's names. People are trying to figure out what God is all about. Even after Jesus there are lots of accounts of Jesus' life and interpretations of what he did (more than just the four that made it into the modern Bible) so there is tons of scope for interpretation based on the human accounts.

One version of events goes like this:

God does stuff
God talks to people
People write stuff down
People argue over it
People decide which books are important and which are not
People publish, distribute and translate the important bits
People later come to like certain people's writings and not others

So, given how many people are involved here after God takes a step back, it's not unreasonable to consider personal interpretation as a valid course.

:pops in to thread sees the haterz squabbling amongst themselves, chuckles and mooches off:

😆

beliving that god exists purely because there is no way of proving that he doesnt exist

That's not why people believe in God. They believe either because they are told to or because they like the idea, afaik.

Logic and science are very important to some people, but less so others. I think this is what some of you struggle with.

So, given how many people are involved here after God takes a step back, it's not unreasonable to consider personal interpretation as a valid course.

Of course. But then, as TJ and his sledgehammer are trying to say, if you accept that then the Bible loses its potency. It's no longer a holy book, it's a book of best guesses made by men, based on stories they'd heard hundreds of years ago, passed down by word of mouth between generations before anything got written down. Embellished with each telling.

Which, IMHO, is a pretty unreliable foundation to be building a supposedly unshakable belief system on. No wonder they refer to it as 'faith', you'd have to take a lot of it on faith in order to get anywhere.

Logic and science are very important to some people, but less so others.

it doesn't matter wether others don't see it as important if we let lack of logic rule then we end up with life prior to the enlightenment where religous leaders can abuse power in the name of god and do whatever they jolly well like.

molgrips - Member
Logic and science are very important to some people, but less so others. I think this is what some of you struggle with.

Exactly 🙂
logic is a construct of the human intellect, not a "real thing"

I'm sure (well hope I guess) that many of the haterz have room in their lives for things that aren't in accord with a rigidly deterministic logical system - art, poetry, human emotion, where's the logic in those......

toys19 - Member

Logic and science are very important to some people, but less so others.

it doesn't matter wether others don't see it as important if we let lack of logic rule then we end up with life prior to the enlightenment where religous leaders can abuse power in the name of god and do whatever they jolly well like.

And so passes another product of the British schools' history curriculum.

I bet you know a lot about the Nazis, though.

toys19 - Member

if we let lack of logic rule then we end up with life prior to the enlightenment where religous leaders can abuse power in the name of god and do whatever they jolly well like.

As opposed to a life where political leaders can abuse power in the name of progress, economics and security needs and do whatever they jolly well like.

I've heard, usually Christians in the US to be fair, respond to "why do you think this" with "because it says so in the Bible."

Well that's because they are stupid, as others have said. The bible was never intended to be taken literally, it was written to provide guidance, and was never meant to be an instruction manual with 10 steps to find inner happiness. Sorta like the analogy of give someone a fish and they eat for a day, teach them to fish and they will eat everyday.

Christianity seems to be suffering from the recent (last 50 years or so) instant gratification culture. Where if I can't see it, or be given explicit instructions on how to do something then it can't be worth doing, especially it would involve any effort other than googling it.

haterz

On a point of note, I don't hate anyone (and if I did, I wouldn't spell it like a teenage boy on facebook). Can we lose the passive-aggressive insults please? It doesn't do you any favours and we've got too many people being obnoxious already.

it doesn't matter wether others don't see it as important if we let lack of logic rule then we end up with life prior to the enlightenment where religous leaders can abuse power in the name of god and do whatever they jolly well like

No, I don't think we do. It's not black and white, logic or anarchy, after all.

Hilldodger - where's the logic in ill-informed banging on and on about fairies and unicorns on a religion thread? Oh sweet irony 🙂

I'm sure (well hope I guess) that many of the haterz have room in their lives for things that aren't in accord with a rigidly deterministic logical system - art, poetry, human emotion, where's the logic in those......

I love all of these things and make space for them in my life, but that isn't the issue here. You seem to be saying if ypou don't believe in god then you can't have art poetry emotion etc?

toys - I read your posts - just nowt to respond to apart from to say I agree with you basically but maybe ease off on the pejorative language?

I got a metaphorical kicking from (IIRC) Barnsleymitch for intemperate language and accepted it as its not right to insult moderate non proselytising folk like him as well

So don't you think it's pointless to debate the bible when its just a part of whats underneath the whole umbrella of "faith"?

it doesn't matter wether others don't see it as important if we let lack of logic rule then we end up with life prior to the enlightenment where religous leaders can abuse power in the name of god and do whatever they jolly well like

I think people were still pretty religious during the Enlightenmnet, were't they?

Presumably, if "god" is all powerful, "he" could change it so that two plus two would equal three (logic being just a "construct", and all...).

Cougar - Member

haterz

On a point of note, I don't hate anyone (and if I did, I wouldn't spell it like a teenage boy on facebook). Can we lose the passive-aggressive insults please? It doesn't do you any favours and we've got too many people being obnoxious already.

Fair enough, I'm all for politeness and respect, shame it's not always reciprocated 😕

In future I shall refer to the people opposed to the free and open public discussion of religious views as "people of unfaith" unless you have a better suggestion....

. RichC

The bible was never intended to be taken literally, it was written to provide guidance, and was never meant to be an instruction manual

In whcih case how do yo anser this as put by Cougar?

if you accept that then the Bible loses its potency. It's no longer a holy book, it's a book of best guesses made by men, based on stories they'd heard hundreds of years ago, passed down by word of mouth between generations before anything got written down. Embellished with each telling.

Its either the word of god or its a made up story by fallible humans. If its the former it should be obeyed literally, if its the latter then what is the imperative to obey any of it?

As opposed to a life where political leaders can abuse power in the name of progress, economics and security needs and do whatever they jolly well like.

Well that is a differnet problem but at least if we criticize cameron et al we don't get burned at the stake.

Molgrips

I think people were still pretty religious during the Enlightenmnet, were't they?

From [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment ]wikipedia[/url]: The Age of Enlightenment (or simply the Enlightenment or Age of Reason) was a cultural movement of intellectuals in 18th century Europe and America, whose purpose was to reform society and advance knowledge. It promoted science and intellectual interchange and opposed superstition, intolerance and abuses in church and state.

How nice that it happened and I celebrate those who perpetuted it, and what we are seeing in this thread is a decline of those ideals, which is very sad.

toys19 - Member

I love all of these things and make space for them in my life, but that isn't the issue here. You seem to be saying if ypou don't believe in god then you can't have art poetry emotion etc?

No, I'm replying to your point that Logic is the over riding principle for life and suggesting a few things that don't follow a logical system....

if its the latter then what is the imperative to obey any of it?

Because you think it's sound advice?

There is a lot of it in there.

If you want to argue about this, it would really make sense to get a better idea of what Christianity is about. This concept of all the bible being of equal weight is facile. There is a whole academic subject of Theology which involves the study of such matters and Christians rely on priests and others to help them determine what they should give greatest weight to. As with other subjects, not all practitioners agree with each other and there are divergent views. Hence, much of the portrayal of what is important to Christians in these threads is ill educated and emphasises extremes that many of the faith do not agree with.

I think people were still pretty religious during the Enlightenmnet, were't they?

I refer the honourable gentleman to the reply I gave earlier...

The sloughing off of the "bad" bits of the chosen "Holy Book" always follows the advances of secular morality.

This happens slowly though, as religion is highly resistant to change from outside it's boundaries in the society or wider secular landscape in which it squats.

Theology, Unicornology, Leprechaunology...

(Just testing the theory that the best way to educate is by repetition of the lesson).

TandemJeremy - Member
the word of god

TJ, seriously, I suggest you do some reading on the theological interpretation of the phrase "word of God", it is most certainly not a literal unquestioning adherence to ancient scriptures....

The bible was never intended to be taken literally

Never? I don't believe you.

I don't know for certain, but I'm pretty sure that that's a massive backpedal by Christianity. And even if it isn't, the Bible would have been taken literally by most of its largely uneducated audience back in the day, so if it's true that it was never meant to be taken literally then it's essentially fraud on a huge scale.

AFAIK, the only reason we're now going, "ah, well, you see, it's allegorical" is because in these relatively enlightened time anyone with an ounce of critical thinking can see that it's complete bobbins.

As we discover more about the world and its history, the church is having a harder and harder time reconciling this with the 'facts' presented in the Bible. Something's got to give, and they've finally worked out that going "no, no, science is wrong, erm, dinosaur fossils were buried by satan to trick us!" isn't going to work except on the [i]really [/i]hard of thinking, so now it's 'not literal'.

What Christianity really needs is Bible 2.0.

One version of events goes like this:

Molgrips - nice summary, wish I could be that concise

TJ, seriously, I suggest you do some reading on the theological interpretation of the phrase "word of God", it is most certainly not a literal unquestioning adherence to ancient scriptures....

You're probably right. It's more an attempt to stifle skeptical enquiry by claiming divine infallibility. Much like the current output from the Vatican.

molgrips - Member

if its the latter then what is the imperative to obey any of it?

Because you think it's sound advice?

There is a lot of it in there.

So its back to choosing which bits suit you then - what is convenient for you to beleive in. It actually has no moral authority - its simply a menu of things one can choose to believe in or not.

What Christianity really needs is Bible 2.0.

They already have it, its called the New Testament.

Hilldodger - thats not the point - its this simple one

If you can pick an chose which bits of the bible to believe in/ to follow and this choice is made on the interpretations laid down by fallible humans then actually the bible has no more validity or weight than any other code laid down by people.

Because you think it's sound advice?

There is a lot of it in there.

So why can't we have sound advice without all this pesky 'god' business? (Because people won't follow it unless it's accompanied either by a threat or a promise of a reward, perhaps?)

As the late great DNA said, is it not enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there's fairies at the bottom of it?

They already have it, its called the New Testament.

Zing! Good point. (-: