Life, The Universe, And Everything

[BuddyFerris]

I have genuinely considered whether my belief system is myth and dream. My conclusion, honestly reached, is that it is not.

 

So; dragons, angels, unicorns, flying chariots, talking donkeys, are not mythical? It's all real? There is a "God" who created the world, the universe out of nothing? We have a "soul" hiding in our mortal bodies that travels up into a heaven, or down into a hell when we die?

 

Wow!

 

And your conclusion that all that is real was reached how?

Hello, Jun.

Your panel says Japan; genuine? Lived there '88-'91. Loved it, but still can't to the time change correctly without help. Fri morning here, nearly midnight there now according to the clock on my PDA.

 

I didn't intend to imply that all Biblical accounts are literally true as we read what was written with our 21st century understandings, but but I'm less troubled by the fantastical accounts from the Bible than most. The flood, for example, describes a sudden inundation with a survivor family on a boat. There are many reasons for us to believe the flood actually happened in some form in the area to which the account refers. See Flood Evidence for one of hundreds. While the Biblical account refers to a world-wide flood and to animals on the boat, if read in the language and world concepts of the time in which written, it isn't a difficult match to the evidence available so far.

 

Literalism may be all well and good, I suppose, but to take an account written several thousand years ago from a non-scientific frame of reference, and to interpret it in a post-17th century context is poor scholarship at best. Did the flood happen? Probably so. Did Noah and his family and a collection of local fauna survive by waiting it out on a boat? Certainly possible. Was the world destroyed by the flood? From Noah's point of view, it may well have been. Does the account form the basis of our presuppositions? Not mine, and apparently not yours. Does a non-literal interpretation of the event cause either of us intellectual difficulties? Probably not.

 

What causes the most angst in theist/non-theist conversation on the subject is the interpretation of the events; what does it mean? There is where we likely differ.

 

I find that I differ from the sub-set of Christians who classify themselves as fundamentalists and who subscribe to an absolutely literal interpretation of the Bible. I spent a few years in that camp and was intellectually unable to buy in, as was my wife. Don't mistake my non-literalist view as being unsure about the existence and nature of God; I've settled that one as honestly and thoroughly over the years as I'm able.

 

Buddy

Where's BoomSlang when I need her; she'd slam me good on this one.

[Vigile]

Buddy, literal or not, what could you possibly derive from the flood account other than that god is stupid and vindictive?

[BuddyFerris]

Buddy, my point was not that none of us have blinders, but we have one less than you to look through. Just like you are an atheist to all the other gods in the world, we are just one less god than you! Were god-lite!

More taste, less fooling. I get it, I get it. You'll understand that from my point of view, you're one God short of a full deck.

Buddy

[freeman]

Buddy,

Have you ever heard of the story, "Epic of Gilgamesh"?

Here is a condensed Wikipedia version.

 

So....what makes you think jesus was literal and not just some bronze aged men's wild imagination?

 

 

Major, major faux pas! boomSLANG is a guy! You might want to take that back or I will go to the blogs and bring him back here!

[freeman]

If there is a god, how do we know which one is right?

[Japedo]

I didn't intend to imply that all Biblical accounts are literally true as we read what was written with our 21st century understandings, but but I'm less troubled by the fantastical accounts from the Bible than most.

 

 

Which stories then are literal and which aren't? How is it you decipher them?

 

 

Literalism may be all well and good, I suppose, but to take an account written several thousand years ago from a non-scientific frame of reference, and to interpret it in a post-17th century context is poor scholarship at best. Did the flood happen? Probably so. Did Noah and his family and a collection of local fauna survive by waiting it out on a boat? Certainly possible. Was the world destroyed by the flood? From Noah's point of view, it may well have been.

 

 

 

 

This entire tribal mindset can be said for the entire buybull. The exodus for example from a Hebrew point of view was liberating... it is the basis of freedom and being in gods good graces. I'm doubtful however, that a tax paying Egyptian who had no control over gods force of hand to harden pharos heart and in turn cause him to murder the first born of every Egyptian house has the same liberation feel good sensation. This god would appear mean, unjust, cruel and evil to them. It's all about point of view, and it just so happens that the winners of the buybull stories get to share their point of view. It's why the hand of god isn't just, isn't fair and isn't right. It's blatantly dealt in favoritism and tribal mentality which is another glaring example why this book wasn't written by god(s) but by tribe leaders.

[BuddyFerris]

Buddy, literal or not, what could you possibly derive from the flood account other than that god is stupid and vindictive?

Vigile del Fuoco,

Without presuming to second-guess God on this issue, let's consider the problem that another ex-Christian proposed. Her sister was married to an ass who beat her regularly. What actions are justifiable against the fellow, she asks. Can you in good conscience lie to him or withhold information?

 

True story: when I was 17, my sister called me from out of state asking for help; her husband who abused her and their baby son continuously had beaten her badly to the point of hospitalization and miscarriage. I was putting my gun and bag in the car when she called back and said to wait, she and her 2 year old were getting help to escape by train. She told me later that she knew full well what I would do and wanted to avoid the problems it would bring me. I fully intended to kill the fellow if necessary to protect my sister and nephew. Was I justified? If our father had stepped in to protect his daughter and grandson, and in doing so had killed or injured the man, would he have been justified?

 

On a larger scale, if the genocide in Rwanda came to our attention as a nation, would we be justified in intervening, even if it meant killing some bad guys? Now we get up to the difficult questions. Who are we to judge another? Can we do so without wicked motives? Can we do so from a position of being right in every way? You see where the questions lead, of course.

 

For you or me to have done what supposedly God did would in fact be stupid and vindictive, which is your contention.

 

Two children at play; one hits the other for calling him a bad name. Stupid and vindictive.

Dad comes along and disciplines both, and hopefully does so with a clean heart and with clear intent to improve the two of them where possible.

 

Wiping out a bunch of folks is a different issue, of course. I wouldn't presume to be able to judge such a circumstance.

Buddy

[freeman]

This is stupid and vindictive!

 

Eternal damnation!

[webmdave]

Webmaster,

 

Each therefore concludes that their position is superior, worthy of promulgation, and eminently persuasive.

 

Wrong, wrong, wrong. You are absolutely dripping with erroneous assumptions. You, an admitted magical thinking, Charismatic religio-bot are posting on an ex-Christian site, thus promulgating your views. I am not on a Christian site arguing with anyone. You came here. No one came to you. Do you have the mental capacity to comprehend the difference? Can't you see that you are the one on the offensive here? Everyone who responds is on the defense. You are attacking, simply by insisting that your ideas be considered. You so want to make things appear as if we are all on an equal playing field, that your ideas and ours are equal in some way, that courteously accepting discussion between magical nonsense and rational thought is the highest measure of human value. Consider this for a moment, if you will: How do you suppose I would be greeted on a Christian website if I approached the discussion in exactly the same way you do, but from my perspective on life? Hmm? Hugs and kisses? Do you think I'd be allowed to continue posting at all? Don't know? Then just try it sometime and you'll get yourself an education.

 

A question: Why is it so hard for Christians anti-Christians to admit failings irrational bias without immediately pointing the finger right back in people's faces? That was a little harsh, wasn't it; not offered with any emotion attached, though; just semi-objective observation.

 

Why, why, why is it impossible for you to simply quote the other person without adding a finger pointing paraphrase? Again, you are the one evangelizing your magick. You are the one pushing YOUR agenda. Magick is not rational. Magick is fantasy.

 

You correctly point out that I might have some idea that this forum series is divinely appointed

 

Of course you do. That's your magical thinking kicking in. Everything is ordained, since before the founding of the world. Every stinking thing wrong with human society is ordained before the foundation of the world. That's what your book of spells tells us.

 

I'm inclined toward purposeful existence

 

Well dUH! Everyone is. However, your OPINION on what purposeful existence means is not necessarily shared by ANYONE. Slaves have purposeful existence -- the purpose of their masters. Free people make their own purpose. "The largest component of which is beneficial human interaction" is another of your unsupported, and authoritarian sounding opinions.

 

The life events that separate us philosophically to the point where compassionate (that's the humanist term) interaction isn't possible are unfortunate failures which, if left to themselves, widen the gap of misunderstanding and animosity.

 

Yeah, like eternal retributive horror in a flaming lake of fire. It appears your God has no problem with wide gaps. Perhaps you have a different god in your head -- one of your own making. Regardless if whether rhetoric is pointed, emphatic, effeminate, or flowery, all or none of these approaches could be considered "compassionate." And I believe compassionate is an ENGLISH term, not exclusive to any particular philosophic stance.

 

Do we need enemies? To what end?

 

It is your religion that I hate, Buddy, not you; I don't even know you. You are coming here, to a den of former metaphorical alcoholics and telling us how dreamy it is to be drunk. Your religion has done damage to many people here. I lost over half my life chasing the carrot and repenting before the stick, only to eventually figure out I was harnessed to a cart of shit. Your religion is my enemy. Around here, we love the religio-bot, but hate the religion.

 

PS: You really need to get your head around the concept that your opinions, philosophy, religion, magical thinking, super-califragilistic-natural-fantasy-world experiences do not mean a dinky bird to others and do no not comprise the worldview of everyman or everywoman. Sure, life experiences help shape our views, but mystical sounding hallucinations brought on by overactive imaginations by people whose minds have been indoctrinated since birth to look for such "signs and wonders" don't count as real experiences. Just like the men and women in the psyche ward, your supposed visions and voices are only in your head, Buddy.

 

And as far as pointed rhetoric being a bludgeon, perhaps you missed the disclaimer at the front door to the "Lion's Den": "Expect heated responses here."

 

I suggest you get over it.

[Ouroboros]

Buddy,

 

Consider all the new born babies that were drowned, because God was upset with some fallen angels having sex with the human women and creating the giants. And even if God successfully killed all the babies, it seems that God failed to kill of the giants who were the target for his campaign, since Joshua meet their offspring in a later book. What that story tells me is that children's stories tends to fascinate grown-ups to the point that they might believe in them too.

 

WM,

 

That was a cool phrase: "You are coming here, to a den of former metaphorical alcoholics and telling us how dreamy it is to be drunk."

[BuddyFerris]

Buddy,

Have you ever heard of the story, "Epic of Gilgamesh"?

Here is a condensed Wikipedia version.

 

So....what makes you think jesus was literal and not just some bronze aged men's wild imagination?

 

 

Major, major faux pas! boomSLANG is a guy! You might want to take that back or I will go to the blogs and bring him back here!

Have it your way, pal. And I'm the good-looking African fellow in my avatar.

(He's actually a telecommunications engineer in Sao Tome; great guy, and the picture accidentally came out really good.)

 

Buddy

P.S. Yep, The Gilgamesh epic and other sources support the flood account in greater or lesser detail. For those who care, the historicity of Jesus is a long discussion we'll pick up later, I hope, this month.

[Vigile]

Wiping out a bunch of folks is a different issue, of course. I wouldn't presume to be able to judge such a circumstance.

 

Yes, wiping out a bunch of people is entirely different from the other examples you provided; apples and oranges really.

 

You may not dare to judge, but that just goes to your refusal to be objective on this one subject that to you is taboo, that of your religion. To any clear thinking objective thinker, however, the god who supposedly wiped out the entire human race (or entire tribe of peoples if you wish to not be so literal) was indeed vindictive and stupid. This is especially true in light of the change of heart god seemed to have had as he later came up with a plan to save the human race rather than wipe them out (a plan equally vindictive and stupid btw). For an unchanging god, he sure did a 180 here wouldn't you say?

[BuddyFerris]

If there is a god, how do we know which one is right?

Slow down, guys; I'm having a heck of a time getting any work done. Actually, I haven't done anything but this since I arrived at the office. Later.

Buddy

[Grandpa Harley]

I have genuinely considered whether my belief system is myth and dream. My conclusion, honestly reached, is that it is not.

 

So; dragons, angels, unicorns, flying chariots, talking donkeys, are not mythical? It's all real? There is a "God" who created the world, the universe out of nothing? We have a "soul" hiding in our mortal bodies that travels up into a heaven, or down into a hell when we die?

 

Wow!

 

And your conclusion that all that is real was reached how?

 

Jun, you're Australian... thus it's up to Hell and down to Heaven (since God is clearly a Northern Hemisphere Guy... probably British)

 

(Just gotta love the Hamburger Universe...)

 

[freeman]

Buddy,

Have you ever heard of the story, "Epic of Gilgamesh"?

Here is a condensed Wikipedia version.

 

So....what makes you think jesus was literal and not just some bronze aged men's wild imagination?

 

 

Major, major faux pas! boomSLANG is a guy! You might want to take that back or I will go to the blogs and bring him back here!

Have it your way, pal. And I'm the good-looking African fellow in my avatar.

 

 

What the fuck was that for?

 

What the epic of Gilgamesh represents is that EVERYTHING in the bible is plagiarized!

[alanh]

The issue of proof and proving is troublesome...

 

That's like saying the Pacific ocean is somewhat damp.

[Grandpa Harley]

Buddy,

Have you ever heard of the story, "Epic of Gilgamesh"?

Here is a condensed Wikipedia version.

 

So....what makes you think jesus was literal and not just some bronze aged men's wild imagination?

 

 

Major, major faux pas! boomSLANG is a guy! You might want to take that back or I will go to the blogs and bring him back here!

Have it your way, pal. And I'm the good-looking African fellow in my avatar.

 

 

What the fuck was that for?

 

What the epic of Gilgamesh represents is that EVERYTHING in the bible is plagiarized!

Certainly Genesis. Much of the rest of the OT to the end of Judges is pretty much stolen from other desert dwellers, and after that it's mostly retconned history written during the Babylonian exile.

 

The over arching structure of the NT is in the gospels owe more to Greek dramatic construct than it does Aramaic thought, and the plots are wholly pagan (most of the ideas espoused being unable to be communicated in Aramaic... as I've said before the concept of a literal 'after life' is Aramaic thought what the theory of Large Primes is to those Amazon tribes who have no words for numbers bigger than three) The epistles are suspect, since they antedate the canonical Gospels and make little reference to the sayings of Jesus, save in the most parabolic way (they may not even be paraphrases) nor any of the acts, and seem to have been written in some cases almost 20 years after the death of the putative author. Revelations is a drug soaked wet dream of revenge on people who are pissing John off...

[dano]

It doesn't matter what kind of Christian you are.

 

If you call yourself one, and say you have faith in the basic concepts of Christianity, you are an enabler.

 

Those with the most talent for discourse, are often the enablers of less talented believers in Mythology.

 

They are helping them have faith a religious meme, that survives by proselytizing, and in the past has governed the world, and killed and tortured, and lied, and schemed, and murdered anyone who got in their way

 

It's faith that is getting our troops blown up in Iraq. Faith in the first cousin of Christianity, Islam.

 

Faith in your particular belief and a willingness to kill for it IS THE PROBLEM.

 

Buddy, your faith is the problem. No matter how benign you are, YOU ARE AN ENABLER!

 

Humanism or something akin to it will be the future, NOT CHRISTIANITY!

 

We need stem cell research up the ass. We don't need faith based initiatives. We don't need a borned again president. We do need people like Washington, and Jefferson, and Franklin, and Paine.

 

We don't need a religious government with all of the accompanying, progress stultifying baggage that goes with it.

 

We need people in this Country who can think, not what we are getting with this current dumbing down of America by the evangelical right!

 

Dan, Agnostic

[Grandpa Harley]

One of the things that gets me... every damned answer becomes a homesy Norman Rockwell homily...

 

[Kuroikaze]

You and I share the insatiable desire for answers and understanding.

 

You say this, but then believe in things you admit you have no evidence for. These two things seem mutually exclusive to me.

 

Little in life compares to the pleasure of discovering truth. Religion offers little in the way of practical answers, and we lean away from religious platitudes and religious social structures.

 

And I reject religion because it doesn't offer practical answers, practical answers are the only ones worth hearing.

 

Interestingly, although not protected under the law as such, humanism is a religion in all of the same metrics as is any other.

 

This greatly depends on ones definition of religion...I don't think humanism is a religion at all, there is no leaders, no rites, no building we meet in. It is interesting that you say religion offers no practical answers and then you call humanism a religion...almost as if you are just trying to place both our beliefs on equal ground. To say that both our beliefs are irrational so we should just live and let live. I find I cannot agree with you.

 

I'm not a relativist, though I toyed with being one a few years ago, reality is objective and real, and as such there are good answers and bad answers, answers that match reality and that don't. None of my answers are taken on faith the way religious beliefs are, I am only choosing to believe the most rational or likely answers. I hardly see how that counts as religion, it is simply using my brain.

 

Again, all ideas are not equal, some are good and some are bad, why should it surprise you that I reject bad answers?

I'm not going to play the tolerance game where everyones ideas are good simply because they are firmly held religious ideas, because they aren't all good, and I don't tolerate bad ideas no matter what their source.

 

To abandon a theistic foundation is to default to the humanist's position unless you descend the whole way to an absolute determinism (no choice). If you truly have to know the answers, you'll be frustrated on several issues for a lifetime.

 

I'm not sure what answers you are referring too here? Of course I realize I'll never know almost anything for certain, but I am far from frustrated, I merely believe the answer that is most rational, and continue to do so until information comes along that makes another answer more reasonable.

I am not in the least bit frustrated. What was frustrating was trying to force myself to believe in religious, faith based, ideas when there were obviously better answers out there. I am completely the opposite of frustrated in this issue

 

You attitude almost seems Laissez-faire, as if since you cannot be certain of the answers we should simply throw up our hands and just take everything on faith, but if all humans had taken that attitude then we would still be living in caves and picking ticks off of each other. It is not an answer I can accept.

[alanh]

I hope for the sake of the locals Buddy isn't using faith-based construction methods. That reminds me of a Monty Python sketch:

 

Voice Over: The local Council here have over fifty hypnosis-induced twenty-five story blocks, put up by El Mystico and Janet. I asked Mr Ken Verybigliar the advantages of hypnosis compared to other building methods.

 

Mr Verybigliar: Well there is a considerable financial advantage in using the services of El Mystico. A block, like Mystico Point here, (indicating a high-rise block behind him) would normally cost in the region of one-and-a-half million pounds. This was put up for five pounds and thirty bob for Janet.

 

Voice Over: But the obvious question is are they safe?

 

Architect: Of course they're safe. There's absolutely no doubt about that. They are as strong, solid and as safe as any other building method in this country provided of course people believe in them.

[Grandpa Harley]

You and I share the insatiable desire for answers and understanding.

 

[Jon Stewart] So much so, he makes up answers he can understand... IT WUZ GAWD![/Jon Stewart]

[BuddyFerris]

This entire tribal mindset can be said for the entire buybull. The exodus for example from a Hebrew point of view was liberating... it is the basis of freedom and being in gods good graces. I'm doubtful however, that a tax paying Egyptian who had no control over gods force of hand to harden pharos heart and in turn cause him to murder the first born of every Egyptian house has the same liberation feel good sensation. This god would appear mean, unjust, cruel and evil to them. It's all about point of view, and it just so happens that the winners of the buybull stories get to share their point of view. It's why the hand of god isn't just, isn't fair and isn't right. It's blatantly dealt in favoritism and tribal mentality which is another glaring example why this book wasn't written by god(s) but by tribe leaders.

 

Japedo,

You say the Bible shows a tribal mindset; I think that's at least partly true. The book's is primarily for and about just one particular people and the events surrounding their history. The book doesn't cover a large body of information that we think might profitably have been included. The result, one side of many accounts is unrepresented in the narrative. We can speculate about how the Egyptians might have viewed the Exodus events, and perhaps we can therefrom pass judgment on a God who would so punish the innocents. Before doing so, we could consider how and why we bombed population centers to bring WWII to a quicker end and to spare the lives of our sons. It was a difficult and agonizing choice for the leaders at the time who espoused the honorable concept of avoiding collateral civilian casualties if at all possible. Following that horrible decision, hundreds of thousands died, but multiple millions did not. In Egypt, what would have been an alternative? I can speculate, but I don't know enough of their story to do so. I can't support the conclusion you reach.

 

Buddy

[Grandpa Harley]

So, God's just a big human... after all, no one thinks 'kill em all, god'll know his own' is anything more than a pragmatic (and very human) stance.

 

From the point of view of an omnipotent, omiscient deity one would expect better... this does not happen

 

If you ain't prepared to judge the demon god you follow I would be... If I thought he existed...

[Grandpa Harley]

and the 'God's plan' argument is like a military leader saying 'collateral damage' or 'acceptable civilian loses'... back to God being just a big nasty man... means God can't do a surgical strike... and thus isn't omnipotent, just General Patton with the power cosmic...