The Route Of All Evil

[obvious]

There's already a perfectly formed (pun intended) discussion about this over here. Well worth a read.

[Kumagoro]

It would be more believeable that the universe is one big computer game come scientific
experiment. Rather than the nonsense that is heaven hell and all that bollocks.

It doesnt matter what you say about how things evolved and why because the gullible
fool can just say god decided it that way. Its equivalent to 'I know you are but what am I,
I know you are but what am I, I know you are but what am I, I know you are but what am I'.

[TeePee]

I asume that you are unaware that most of those laws mentioned above applied only to the Jews before Jesus came to fullfill the law.

They do not directly apply to Christains today, only those that are repeated in the new testament.

One example is that before Jesus came the Jews were not allowed to eat certain foods which were deemed unclean.

After Jesus came and fulfilled the law, God commanded that all animals could now be used for food.

This symbolised that salvation was no longer just for the Jews but that all could now come to Christ for salvation.

Unless, of course, those particular laws suit the christians who want to use the bible to persecute those who live a life outside them.

[TeePee]

am also against being 'religious', or pursuing 'religion'. I AM totally in favour of the pursuit of Truth. Yes, I believe in an objective Truth even though I will only ever have a subjective intepretation of it. As you know 2 + 2 = 4 to be the truth, I know Christ to be the Truth. As real, yes.

Whether to construe a statement in a book as fact is not as simple as it seems. That's why (for eg) there are different denominations in Christianity. Not an admirable state of affairs when it leads to conflict but it illustrates that even within the set of believers, there is debate about what constitutes a fact. This does not mean there are no facts, but that there isn't simply a blind adherence to certain understandings, in Christianity. There are issues of context, of meaning, of intention, etc.

Here's something you may or may not be aware of: When someone reads the Bible, there are 2 broad ways of doing so:

1) as a reader (regardless of whether a Christian or not)

2) where one is lead by the Holy Spirit

those are two very different approaches. With the former, one can use the words therein to assert anything, to justify anything, however the ego desires. Look at history etc etc.

EVERY time a Christian reads the Bible, he/she has to do so consciously under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, in order to prevent the ego from taking centre stage.

otherwise, the Bible just reads as a book. Yes, the most popular in history etc, but not one that will be accessible.

believe me or not, is up to you. Am simply explaining the crucial detail.

Please do not feed the troll.

[nichomach]

Accusing fuddam of trolling is frankly ludicrous. All the way through this thread, fuddam's posted constructively and usefully.The fact that you don't share his opinions or belief is hardly grounds for accusing him of being a troll.

[TeePee]

No, he hasn't. Throughout this thread, he's made comments such as the above, designed only to provoke a reaction.

There are many people on this thread I don't agree with, and have entered into discussion with. The world would be boring if everyone shared my opinion. fuddam's ridiculous 'viewpoints' are designed only to provoke the kind of reactions we've seen, and this kind of trolling should not be encoraged.

[nichomach]

fuddam's simply pointed out that there are different approaches to reading the Bible, and accepted that you can believe or not believe. It seems to me that you consider that trolling because it conflicts with your point of view. fuddam's viewpoints have been anything but ridiculous; you just don't like them, and have resorted to namecalling and accusations of trolling in order to suppress them.

[G4Z]

Been reading this from the start, interesting thread and I have to agree with Nich, he is not a troll, Fuddam to his credit has tried to explain why he belives what he does.

I do not think he has made a logical and cosistent argument that his belief is in fact truth, I think that Christians havea habit of redefining words like that to suit thier agenda. to me truth (in this context particularly) is somthing that is a certainty, that is proveable and is supported by evidence.

However, Oxford defines truth as :


truth

• noun (pl. truths /trooths, troo&ulth;z/) 1 the quality or state of being true. 2 (also the truth) that which is true as opposed to false. 3 a fact or belief that is accepted as true.

So truth is in fact something accepted to be true as well as my interpretation, maybe we should talk about facts?

Fuddam, I do think you should question why you know what you know.

is it simply because people have told you this?

did they provide evidence?

do you think a book written with a political agenda centuries after the event constitutes evidence you can work with?

I note you also say you have a 2 way relationship with god, to be quite frank with you I have certainly never heard any voices or had conversations with a deity within my mind. If this is really true I would hope you consider the fact that you are really deluding your self here.The brain is a very complex bit of kit, the product of millions of years of tiny alterations and they dont all work 100% (i.e not perfect, yet made in gods image as you say) are you saying that you are entirely certain this is not all in your head, how can any of us be certain that what we percive in our minds is even real when all anything you see and feel or hear and touch is just electrical impulses interpreted by your brain? (took that line from the matrix, it does have a pretty strong existential theme)

I thought there was an interesting way to look at this (very similary to the process I formed my own views) at the end of the 2nd part of the documentary in question where one of the interviewees (cant remember the name, I may grab it off the internet later and check) talks about how you start with the brain, and think about all the millions of connections it is made up of. we know what would happen if you for example severed the 2 halfs of the brain in somebody and how that affects them mentaly with some very strange conditions. We can work out why this is and what different bits of the brain do. When our body dies these connections in your brain that make up "you" they die and rot. From there how can it be possible to have a soul that goes to an afterlife, where is the evidence. All evidence points to when you die thats it your gone, I gather this was widely belived in the days before Jesus (when he offered a nice cuddly afterlife as a reward for lifelong obedience).

From there everything else you get indoctrinated with makes a lot less sense and begins to unravel.

I dunno where I am going with this meandering post, just some musings of mine.

[TeePee]

fuddam's simply pointed out that there are different approaches to reading the Bible, and accepted that you can believe or not believe. It seems to me that you consider that trolling because it conflicts with your point of view. fuddam's viewpoints have been anything but ridiculous; you just don't like them, and have resorted to namecalling and accusations of trolling in order to suppress them.

As I have said, many people have different viewpoints, which I have discussed happily. fuddam, in this thread and others, uses ridiculous statements designed only to provoke a reaction, and not as a sensible approach to discussion. This I define as trolling.

[nichomach]

As opposed to:

This is typical of a christian attitude. They can't be bothered to actually understand anything that doesn't fit with their five hundred year old religious text. Did you pass GCSE science?

We aren't going to go on like this, because you are a moron. Please don't vote.

There is a comparison. Smart children stop believing in Jesus when they find out their parents lied to them about Santa.

Indoctrinated from birth. God speaks to him.

And you whine about trolling?

[TeePee]

All directed at fuddam.
Lets look at the last time the troll came out to play:

http://forums.hexus.net/showthread.php?t=63460

He got me, I argued back.

until this:

I would recommend thinking for yourself, rather than trotting out the same old tired, flawed theories I see time and again

Like I said, he's a troll after a reaction, and deserving everything he gets.

[fuddam]

As I have said, many people have different viewpoints, which I have discussed happily. fuddam, in this thread and others, uses ridiculous statements designed only to provoke a reaction, and not as a sensible approach to discussion. This I define as trolling.

give me an example of something ridiculous, PLEASE

[TeePee]

I believe in an objective Truth

.

[fuddam]

Fuddam, I do think you should question why you know what you know.

agreed, totally, and all the time. God gave me a brain to use, not let atrophy.

is it simply because people have told you this?

nope

did they provide evidence?

not that I recall.

do you think a book written with a political agenda centuries after the event constitutes evidence you can work with?

sure. Depends on what one knows about that book, though. This is going to sound like I'm mining a seam, but was browsing that www.comereason.org site while at work, and this could prove enlightening, and save me a whole lot of rewriting:

this is about the validity of the Bible

this is about who made the decisions as to what should be in the Bible

If nothing else, will prove food for thought.

I note you also say you have a 2 way relationship with god, to be quite frank with you I have certainly never heard any voices or had conversations with a deity within my mind. If this is really true I would hope you consider the fact that you are really deluding your self here.

That is something that surely occurs to every Christian along the way. Even the knowledge that God has talked to a Christian before does not guarantee that every 'voice' one hears is from Him. I'd say that it's a fair statement that Christians are compelled to test what they hear against scripture and in conversation with other Christians, otherwise one could easily go off at a tangent.

This idea of God speaking to a Christian is FUNDAMENTAL to Christianity, and a major point of departure from the other religions (Judaism excepted): Christianity is about a personal relationship with God, not following certain rules and regulations in the hope that one will somehow make the grade into Heaven. If there is no relationship, I would seriously question someone's claim to be a Christian. A lot of people go to church regularly, say all the right things, know a lot of scripture - that does NOT make them Christian, it does NOT mean they will go to Heaven.

The essence of the Bible is God's desire to have a relationship with humankind. What is a relationship if there is no communication?

And to explain further, HOW does He communicate?

- symbolism (ie something you might see, in any shape or form)
- writing (ie one can read something and be hit with a message from God. It can be something as innocuous as an advertising board, not only in scripture)
- through other Christians saying something that bites straight to the bone, speaks directly to one's circumstance
- through the words of non-Christians too. Sometimes people say something which might have a secondary meaning they never considered
- dreams
- visions
- prophecy (which means the Word of God, not necessarily anything about the future - a common mistake)
- direct words (yes, the kind in your head) And you will KNOW it is not from you.

Probably sounds a bit airy fairy / vague / weird. Well, believe me, if and when it happens, you will know. It's part of that fence analogy I mentioned either in this thread or the one Teepee mentioned just now. From the non-believer's side, it looks like garbage / junk. From the other, you'll know.

The simplest way I can explain it though, is probably from love.

If someone loves you, how do you know? What is evidence, the facts? Can you prove it to an outsider? Ultimately, no. One can show examples of how that person's love is manifested towards you (eg through sacrifice, and Christians will talk of Christ's sacrifice on the cross) but not prove what you are feeling, either as a recipient of their love, or your love for them. But nonetheless, you KNOW when someone loves you, and when you love someone else. Undeniable.

somebody who has never been in love will only appreciate what it all means once they too fall in love. The other side of the fence.

The brain is a very complex bit of kit, the product of millions of years of tiny alterations and they dont all work 100% (i.e not perfect, yet made in gods image as you say) are you saying that you are entirely certain this is not all in your head, how can any of us be certain that what we percive in our minds is even real when all anything you see and feel or hear and touch is just electrical impulses interpreted by your brain? (took that line from the matrix, it does have a pretty strong existential theme)

lol. do you know kung fu too? j/k
I majored in psychology at uni, so yep, it be not foreign to me.

From there how can it be possible to have a soul that goes to an afterlife, where is the evidence. All evidence points to when you die thats it your gone, I gather this was widely belived in the days before Jesus (when he offered a nice cuddly afterlife as a reward for lifelong obedience).

nope, have to consider that Judaism predates Christianity, and is all about the afterlife. Also too all the other religions of the time, in Rome, Greece, throughout the middle east etc, were concerned about an afterlife. Pretty much any belief in a spiritual dimension to humanity would include the afterlife, but that is a whole other tangent.

more importantly, lifelong obedience does NOT guarantee the cuddly place Far from it. Christianity is about ACCEPTANCE of Christ, which in turn brings the free salvation. Freeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
And belief that Christ is God is not sufficient. One could say that the most ardent believer that Christ is God is the devil (from a Christian perspective) and that is why he fights Christianity tooth and nail. The devil believes but is the last to accept. Of course.



by the way, something many non-Christians do not know / appreciate. God has a sense of humour. A huge one. He plays jokes on me all the time. Leaves me grinning - yes, like an idiot. He's a father, after all.

[fuddam]

.

lol. hard to see what I'm responding too, visually, but that assertion of mine is TOTALLY logical.

to argue it purely intellectually:

If there is a God, He must surely represent objective truth. He created everything, it all flows from Him, He is the only truly objective being.

And me? with all my limited faculties as human, I am the opposite end of the spectrum. People can be deceived by words, images, sounds, feelings, pretty much anything under the sun. Subjective.

So, because God exists, I know there is an objective reality, but know that my perception of it can only be subjective.

That does not mean my subjectivity is a prison. Some people have a closer understanding of God's truth than others, so presumably they are closer to the objective truth. And to verify their understanding requires application of rational thought, discussion, debate, reading of God's word in the form of the Bible. Sure, you disregard the latter for various reasons, but that does NOT guarantee you are right; simply, that you choose to ignore it.

enough?

[G4Z]

fuddam,

i commend you on your long reply but in all honesty most of that stuff is just wasted on me, I would much prefer to get the the root of this conversation, I think that basicly is, how can you be sure that all the love and the cuddling and the sharing and the caring and the listening to god the practical joker is not just subjectively percived by you because of christian indoctrination.

Also I went to uni as well, and existentialism is nothing to do with psychology at all, its philosophical.

I would encourage you to read some of Satre on wikipedia but I suspect that you have conditioned yourself to look at things in an entirely unobjective fashion in line with religious teaching, thats why none of the flaws and logical incosistencies are apparent to you and why you will not accept it as even a possible alternative because you just "know".

you could say the same thing about me as I am never ever going to accept that there is a god until he pops round for coffee and dazzless me with his omnipotence to be quite frank, the evidence would have to be overwhelming and it just isnt.

However there is a difference, I can accept that as we learn more about the universe I will have to modify what I understand as correct, that is part of the scientific method and I stand by it as the most robust way to turn a subjective view of the universe from us to an objective measurable universe backed up with evidence.

I also dont understand how you can say you dont worry about it?

worry is the wrong word, as I cant say I worry, I am happy in the knowlege that I will die and rot into dust, does not worry me one bit, although I do think about the nature of me, life the universe and everythine else and trust me I have considered religion and it does not stand up to rational scrutiny.