|
6
Nerd-Its
|
|
blog (coffee shop)
by I am not sure I know, can you help me with your views?
Add a Comment (83)
Email This
Message Author
It's not at all obvious that there is an answer - at least, not in the sense that you could read a bunch of responses and choose one.
Meaning doesn't come from the outside - its only possible source is from the self, and there's no reason to suspect that any two people will find the same meaning.
I think this answer is easy enough, at least for human life: to have joy. I have scriptural reasons for believing this, but it also seems reasonable. Determining what, exactly, is the recipe for joy, however, is another matter.
What is the "Second Book of Nephi"?
I don't think that "...have joy." is really a meaning of life...thats more of something to do while you exist. The question "What is the Meaning of Life?" has more to do with the spontaneity of our existence and why, out of the millions of sperm that have existed within any human man, it was yours that came to fruition; and consequently what do you do with your lottery winnings...I believe that man was purposefully and skillfully created...and I believe she was given a purpose and the fragile moments that we do have to exist are meant to honor our creator and to procure as much spiritual substance as possible, because this body is going back to the dust. I think that whether or not you are a religious person or an atheist you should have read Ecclesiastes (KJV) at some point in your life time...its timeless, and puts everything into perspective... http://ancienthistory.about.com/library/bl/bl_text_bible_eccl1.htm
It was written by King Solomon around 3000 years ago but you'd swear it was written yesterday.
A couple of minor points.
First, while I agree that Brandon's answer isn't really much of an answer - I don't think yours is really any better.
I believe that man was purposefully and skillfully created ... given a purpose ... meant to honor our creator and to procure as much spiritual substance as possible.
Do you have any justification for this belief, or is it just mindless "faith"? More to the point, even if there is some such entity, how does that give meaning to life?
It was written by King Solomon around 3000 years ago but you'd swear it was written yesterday.
Um, no. It was written by someone else, probably about 250 BCE according to modern scholars.
Is it possible, the answer is as simple as God and men are bad, refusing to believe, or maybe, as smart as we all claim to be, there is no God and we are just wandering around trying to figure out who we are, where we came from, and where we are going.
Truth is it's all opinion's based on what we feel is the truth. Nobody knows for sure, maybe there is no meaning to life or maybe there is only one God and a whole lot of folks like Moses wandering around lost. If you pick the right religion you live for ever, pick wrong and burn! Maybe we just turn to worm shit and go away.
The people who really scare me are the one's who claim to know. I pick Jesus, I guess because it's the easiest answer for me. Being born and raised in the Bible belt, I might just be a product of my environment. One thing about it, scottb will make you think!
Crap, I am still wandering, what is the meaning of life? Could one of you guys that scare me so much, share the answer?
Is it possible, the answer is as simple as God and men are bad, refusing to believe, or maybe, as smart as we all claim to be, there is no God and we are just wandering around trying to figure out who we are, where we came from, and where we are going.
Truth is it's all opinion's based on what we feel is the truth. Nobody knows for sure, maybe there is no meaning to life or maybe there is only one God and a whole lot of folks like Moses wandering around lost. If you pick the right religion you live for ever, pick wrong and burn! Maybe we just turn to worm shit and go away.
I totally agree with the inherent problem in the search for the meaning of life but I would say don't let all the problems keep you from a geninune search for the answer. I gave a bible answer, doubtless there are answers in the Koran, in Confusionism, and even in passion itself, I think passion adds meaning to life, in the words of Dr. King, if you have nothing to die for you aren't fit to live...
The people who really scare me are the one's who claim to know. I pick Jesus, I guess because it's the easiest answer for me. Being born and raised in the Bible belt, I might just be a product of my environment. One thing about it, scottb will make you think!
I think its a curious point that you're scared of this. People have found a reason for living, I don't think you should take that away from anyone...simply because you feel you haven't found the correct answer yet. Being born and raised on the bible belt only implies that you were exposed to more opinions hence an obvious reason for your confusion...another good scripture in the bible (sorry to keep bringing it up but it makes for really good reading) is that "...God is not the author of confusion." I believe that whatever answer you seek, it'll be clear and concise, much like a good book...
Crap, I am still wandering, what is the meaning of life? Could one of you guys that scare me so much, share the answer?
Good luck in your search! I responded to Scott anonymously by accident
Um, no. It was written by someone else, probably about 250 BCE according to modern scholars.
Umm no...Actually it was written by King Solomon, all it takes is reading the very first verse of the first chapter in the book (proving that my attempts for you to take consideration for my request to read the book were futile)
" The words of the Preacher, the son of David, king in Jerusalem"
There is only one son of David that became King in Jersusalem. Granted I know that so called Bible scholars have been fighting over this point for decades...and will continue to fight over inconsequential points, Solomon, one of the wisest men ever to walk the earth would laugh at such discussion, also calling them vanity...before making any comments about the bible be sure you've read it, it makes for better discussion...
Do you have any justification for this belief, or is it just mindless "faith"? More to the point, even if there is some such entity, how does that give meaning to life?
Mindless faith is what people have had in this country (I'm assuming you live in the US) and in our sense of security and in the "goodness" of people, all of those things seem to be mindless to me...the bible defines faith as "...the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen..." I think this implies that faith is tangible and therefore must be based on something, namely the word of God. In any case this is not a bible discussion, its a discussion about the meaning of life.
First, while I agree that Brandon's answer isn't really much of an answer - I don't think yours is really any better.
I think you are correct in part...I think that my answer is better exclusively because it pays tribute to the actual question...thats all you can ask from an educated response right? Whether or not you agree is of no consequence...
Umm no...Actually it was written by King Solomon, all it takes is reading the very first verse of the first chapter in the book (proving that my attempts for you to take consideration for my request to read the book were futile)
So, on those grounds, you would judge that Mission Earth was written by one Soltan Gris, an alien bureaucrat responsible for planning the future invasion of Earth? After all, the first lines make exactly that claim. Or maybe it was just a literary device used by L. Ron Hubbard to create a frame in which to explain his ideas.
I think this implies that faith is tangible and therefore must be based on something, namely the word of God.
Oh, so then it is nothing more than a completely unjustified conjecture. At least we've got that straight.
I think that my answer is better exclusively because it pays tribute to the actual question...thats all you can ask from an educated response right?
It's all you can ask, but it's not something you provided. The "actual question" was about the meaning of life. What has that got to do with any gods?
So, on those grounds, you would judge that Mission Earth was written by one Soltan Gris, an alien bureaucrat responsible for planning the future invasion of Earth? After all, the first lines make exactly that claim. Or maybe it was just a literary device used by L. Ron Hubbard to create a frame in which to explain his ideas.
Dude, thats your response? I can tell that was the absolute first thing that popped into your head,use an analogy from a completely separate topic and situation, I think even the people who contest that Solomon wrote the book would disagree...Solomon wrote the book. Get over it.
Oh, so then it is nothing more than a completely unjustified conjecture. At least we've got that straight.
Yes. Much more...you've managed to come up with nothing but futile attempts to invalidate my standpoint on what the meaning of life is. For some reason the idea of a God annoys you...and rightfully so...whats funny is that most of what you do is by faith...in other peoples conjectures and findings...you can either spend your life running from the idea of faith, i.e. rediscovering everything from the wheel to string theory or you can live your life accepting that things exist like air, or other planets, or a ball of iron in the center of the earth....the most rational thing that I've ever heard a person who didn't believe in the divine has said is, "You know, I just haven't had any divine experiences." Much like most people can say, I've never cut open a person and looked inside...my personal belief is that most people have experienced a spiritual realm but chose not to acknowledge it because they aren't satisfied with the explanations that they've received thus far...
It's all you can ask, but it's not something you provided. The "actual question" was about the meaning of life. What has that got to do with any gods?
I provided a clear and concise answer to the question..."the whole duty of man is to fear God and keep his commandments." you just didn't like the answer I gave...you must see that this is an answer...of coarse this answer needs validation but thats another topic, and would force me to be preachy...I don't like being preachy :-)
I can tell that was the absolute first thing that popped into your head,use an analogy from a completely separate topic and situation
The Mission Earth series was the first example that came to my head, but there are hundreds, maybe thousands of literary works that use the device.
How is it a completely separate topic and situation? Someone was writing something and wanted to make it sound more important, so he made it sound like somebody important said it.
Very few scholars think Solomon wrote the book. The few that do are almost certainly among the folks who think that every word in there must be literally true, so I wouldn't actually call them scholars - they're apologists. As with most of the Bible, modern scholars think Ecclesiastes is pseudepigraphal. Some of the letters attributed to Paul are generally believed to be written by someone else. The pentateuch (first five books of the OT) are supposed to have been written by Moses, but modern scholars believe there are at least four different authors - that they were the result of merging two different sources and then later edited.
Solomon didn't write the book. Get over it.
Much more...you've managed to come up with nothing but futile attempts to invalidate my standpoint on what the meaning of life is.
I've done nothing more than make a few snide remarks about your unjustified claims to knowledge. I haven't even started on your standpoint on the meaning of life, because (at least up until this post) you haven't articulated one.
I asked whether you had any justification for your belief - you haven't answered. That's fine - but that makes them unjustified conjecture, as far as anybody else is concerned.
I could say, "I believe the Invisible Pink Unicorn wants us all to leave bowls of milk and honey in the back yard" and have just as much logical foundation as your claims.
I provided a clear and concise answer to the question..."the whole duty of man is to fear God and keep his commandments."
You may have alluded to it, but you never came out and said it. Now that you have, I can make a clear response.
Bullshit.
Look - even if you accept the nonsense that this is your "duty", it has nothing to do with meaning. I build computer software for a living. When I do, build it with a specific purpose in mind. Elsewhere on the site, you've made some provocative statements about AI, including:
I think AI will play a huge role in the next ten years, I forsee an AI being another phenomenon developing as a result of open source and community development...someone will spearhead an AI project that millions will add and improve upon.
Now, I happen to agree with you. But let's play a little thought experiment. Let's suppose I'm the one who "spearheads" the project. When I build the software, I may have a specific purpose in mind - let's say, to answer my damned voice-mail. So, I, as the creator, have decided that the purpose - the duty - of the software is to listen to my voice-mail and deal with the stupid stuff, only passing through the useful stuff, after converting it accurately to text. How has this got anything to do with the meaning this software is supposed to find in its life?
Meaning in one's life cannot be given from the outside. Even by a creator, on the unlikely assumption that one exists. Only the one living the life can give it meaning.
I don't have anything good to say about religions. I think "faith" - an excess of it - may be the single biggest problem we have in the world. It makes smart people stupid. I have no problem arguing religion, and it might be interesting to have another viewpoint around here, but this is OmniNerd. In his moderator bio, willwaddell says,
The beauty of OmniNerd is that no idea goes untested. Every thought you throw into the void comes back cleaned up and honed to a fine point. The quick-witted and sharp-tongued O-Nerd patrons won't let you get away with anything that isn't rock solid. At the end of a discussion you may emerge frustrated or defeated, but you will know infinitely more clearly what you think and why you think it. That, for me, is the real boon of the site.
I heartily agree.
My point is that if you're going to make points based on religion, you better be prepared to defend them.
The Mission Earth series was the first example that came to my head, but
Very few scholars think Solomon wrote the book. The few that do are almost certainly among the folks who think that every word in there must be literally true, so I wouldn't actually call them scholars - they're apologists. As with most of the Bible, modern scholars '''
This is another one of those objective statements...you're saying that "Very few Scholars..." Then you move further to generalize their entire system of believe based on a single one...curious I see a pattern. All Scholars were once "modern" thats another objective statement (which wikipedia seems to be infamous for by the way) that really doesn't prove or disprove anything...
You may have alluded to it, but you never came out and said it. Now that you have, I can make a clear response Bullshit. Look - even if you accept the nonsense that this is your "duty", it has nothing to do with meaning. I build computer software for a living. When I do, build it with a specific purpose in mind. Elsewhere on the site, you've made some provocative statements about AI, including:
I think your biggest problem is that you're making a lot of assumptions and generalizations about a lot of things (i.e religions as a whole, the bible, history, what you chose to believe and what you don't, my intellectual prowess...)
The Question was answered...
Let me be more specific for you:
Intellegent man was created
Man chose not to serve God (It was at this point that life lost meaning...)
He Procreated
They perpetuated a cycle of serving their own lusts (Money, Women (Men), Power)
God Put a new law in the earth (Law of Moses)
Mans soul now needed redeption because you can only mindlessly follow a law for so long unless its in your heart.
Man was redeemed by Jesus
It is now our purpose to get "back" to that state that Adam was in, in communication with God...
All of this can be proven by an abundance of scriptures in the "vile" bible...let me know if you want them...but only if your honestly going to read them (...again...apparently)
The beauty of OmniNerd is that no idea goes untested. Every thought you throw into the void comes back cleaned up and honed to a fine point. The quick-witted and sharp-tongued O-Nerd patrons won't let you get away with anything that isn't rock solid. At the end of a discussion you may emerge frustrated or defeated, but you will know infinitely more clearly what you think and why you think it. That, for me, is the real boon of the site.
I've had many such discussions and they delight me, I don't believe that you should believe anything that you can't prove
Now, I happen to agree with you. But let's play a little thought experiment. Let's suppose I'm the one who "spearheads" the project. When I build the software, I may have a specific purpose in mind - let's say, to answer my damned voice-mail. So, I, as the creator, have decided that the purpose - the duty - of the software is to listen to my voice-mail and deal with the stupid stuff, only passing through the useful stuff, after converting it accurately to text. How has this got anything to do with the meaning this software is supposed to find in its life?
The whole software analogy is a bit fetched but lets work with it...we'd have to make a lot of assumptions to make this poor example work, we'd have to assume that this AI has a soul and that this soul...assuming this, you're right the things the AI has to experience aren't the end...but they are in fact the means...The meaning of life is the Ends and what you do is the means...
Well, I guess I was wrong about there being an interesting new viewpoint here. This is just the same old garbage.
This is another one of those objective statements...you're saying that "Very few Scholars..." Then you move further to generalize their entire system of believe based on a single one...curious I see a pattern. All Scholars were once "modern" thats another objective statement (which wikipedia seems to be infamous for by the way) that really doesn't prove or disprove anything...
This is rambling and incoherent, and I can't do much more than reiterate what I said. The majority of modern bible scholars - both believers and non-believers - recognize that it is unlikely that Solomon wrote Ecclesiastes. The leading consensus is that it was written in about 250 BCE, and no particularly strong candidates are suggested for the actual author.
I get that you don't want to believe this, but that just allows the other readers of this thread to judge the credibility of your arguments. I couldn't care less whether you believe it, since your opinion on the subject is worthless. You're not a bible scholar.
I think your biggest problem is that you're making a lot of assumptions and generalizations about a lot of things (i.e religions as a whole, the bible, history, what you chose to believe and what you don't, my intellectual prowess...)
My assessment of religion, the bible, history, and what I believe aren't casual assumptions. I've given the subject a fair amount of thought over many years.
My assessment of your intellectual prowess is based on what you post. You say foolish things and I'll assume you're a fool. But you've got one big strike against you, in my book. You claim to believe things that are clearly not rational.
Man chose not to serve God (It was at this point that life lost meaning...)
And this is exactly the point I challenged, and which you've still failed to address. Choosing not to serve doesn't remove meaning from life, at most it makes room for one to find real meaning.
The reason for this is that external beings - even creators - do not give meaning to existence. That's the whole point of the AI analogy - even as the AI's creator, I can't give it meaning. It has to find meaning for itself. One might even argue that the whole point of granting the creation free will is to permit such a search.
Of course, I wouldn't argue that way, as I consider the whole notion of a creator to be a pointless hypothesis - a vestige of a time when we knew a lot less about the world.
proving that my attempts for you to take consideration for my request to read the book were futile
I should add that you're quite in error here, too. I didn't read Ecclesiastes yesterday. True - however, I've read it before. I've read every vile word in that "Bible", which is far more than can be said for most Christians.
Too true, too true. I think evangelical christianity would take a huge hit if everyone actually read the Bible and didn't just rely on a "personal relationship with Jesus." In other words, have a personal relationship with someone you can't see, hear or interact with AND refuse to read the book that HE says talks about His will.
I also agree with the idea that Christians should read the bible...the idea of Christianity is far removed from where it was years ago. The idea of drive thru churches and the falicy that floods mainstream religion, everything from the holidays they observe to their complete obliviousness to the basics of the word of God. I find Muslims to be much more studious and concerned about their faith. Its an absolute commandment of Jesus to read "...unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you have no life within you." Somehow some religion extracted wine and crackers from that statement when it was in fact talking about the word of God (the bible, rightly interpreted.) and the spirit of God. How do I know this you ask? John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God, all things were made by him and for him..." Anyway, I'm not one of those people that is unread, I know the bible like my own biography, read it since I was a kid and believe it or not it works for me. I've read everything from the Koran to The Odessey nothing has proven to be more controversial, or true then the KJV Bible. And, yes I have a personal relationship with a person I cannot see or hear. (although we do interact through my reading which is the reason for its paramount importance.) Your relationship with God is a lot like your relationship with any subject you chose (i.e. physics, math, Astronomy.) the more you learn about it the more you believe. All I'm saying is that where there are an abundance of wrongs (i.e. countless sects of Chritianity and diverging, and converging belief structures) there is a right. If I were you'd I'd look at the subject from a less objective standpoint look at it Subjectively
Your relationship with God is a lot like your relationship with any subject you chose (i.e. physics, math, Astronomy.) the more you learn about it the more you believe.
I beg to differ. I think you seriously misunderstand the nature of scientific reasoning and epistemology.
It's not accurate to say that a physicist "believes in physics". It's particularly absurd to say that a mathematician "believes in math".
Mathematics is nothing more than a language. It's a language designed for maximally precise communication of ideas. It's as nonsensical to say one "believes in math" as it is to say one "believes in English". All of mathematics is, by intent, conditional. Math doesn't say "X is true", it says "given assumptions Y, X follows". Among those assumptions are rules of reasoning and contextual assumptions.
The sciences, like physics, aren't really matters of belief, either. They do take some notions as essential - but they're not particularly radical ones. The most significant one is that there is a real world that corresponds in some way to our sense experiences, and that the world behaves according to laws - whether we understand those laws or not. There's no point to trying to understand the world at all, otherwise.
The scientist makes careful observations of the world and proceeds to construct a model that explains it. Technically, however, the scientist (in his role as a scientist, at least) never claims that the world is identical to the model. The scientific claim is that if the world behaved like the model, then we would expect to observe what we do observe.
It's possible that there will be some future observation that the model doesn't predict, or it's possible that there's some other, equivalent model that explains the data equally well and which corresponds more directly to the world. No responsible scientist denies that. In the former case, once we encounter the invalidating observation, we have to find a new theory that accounts for all of the new observation as well as all of the old observations.
In the latter case, however, there's no way to tell which model is the "right" one, and it's entirely irrelevant. We're free to choose whichever model we like - the convention is to choose the one that's logically simplest.
The point of all this is that the scientist doesn't "believe" his model to be true - he merely believes that it's the best description we have of the phenomena we've observed.
Theology is nothing like these subjects. It starts from no observations, assumes its conclusions, and then seeks to construct a model that confirms those biases.
I think evangelical christianity would take a huge hit if everyone actually read the Bible and didn't just rely on a "personal relationship with Jesus."
I think it would be more than just the fundamentalists who'd take the hit. There are a lot of things in there that'd make most people think twice about allegiance to Christianity in general.
Abraham was perfectly willing to murder his newborn son if the angel hadn't intervened, and he's praised for this. The first thing Moses does when he shows up in the book as an adult is to murder a slave overseer. Lot and his family are deemed worth of saving from the destruction of Sodom, and in the very next scene, his daughters get him drunk and seduce him. The very same daughters that he had offered to be raped by the Sodomite gangs. Jephthah promises to sacrifice the very first thing he sees on returning successfully home from committing genocide in Yahweh's name, only to discover that the "first thing" is his only child - so he sacrifices her (burns her to death) and no angel comes to intervene like with Abraham. Some kids make fun of Elisha's baldness, so Yahweh sends two bears from the forest to kill all forty-two of them. Jesus magically kills a fig tree because it doesn't have fruit - out of season.
These are just some of the more prominent stories that come to mind. There's a whole lot of that crap in there.
To the point about evangelicals - I find it interesting that biblical literacy studies show that evangelicals are no more likely to be knowledgeable about it than any other group of Christians.
In other words, have a personal relationship with someone you can't see, hear or interact with AND refuse to read the book that HE says talks about His will.
While I'm being pedantic, Jesus doesn't say a damn thing about reading the book. The text clearly makes him of the opinion that adult males should be well read in the Torah, which was common belief among the Jews of the time. But of course, all of the books in which he appears as a character were written well after his death. None of them put words in his mouth saying "Hey, after I die, they're going to write gospels about me - read them, since they'll tell you what I want you to do."
Abraham was perfectly willing to murder his newborn son if the angel hadn't intervened, and he's praised for this. The first thing Moses does when he shows up in the book as an adult is to murder a slave overseer. Lot and his family are deemed worth of saving from the destruction of Sodom, and in the very next scene, his daughters get him drunk and seduce him. The very same daughters that he had offered to be raped by the Sodomite gangs. Jephthah promises to sacrifice the very first thing he sees on returning successfully home from committing genocide in Yahweh's name, only to discover that the "first thing" is his only child - so he sacrifices her (burns her to death) and no angel comes to intervene like with Abraham. Some kids make fun of Elisha's baldness, so Yahweh sends two bears from the forest to kill all forty-two of them. Jesus magically kills a fig tree because it doesn't have fruit - out of season.
Okay...now this has become a bible discuss which I'm happy to oblidge:
Firstly, as a Christian you follow Christ, Christ came to earth 2000 years after Abraham...Abraham, Issac, Jacob, Elisha...everyone until Moses lived in a time where there was no law...God didn't put a commandment in the earth, there was no bible, there were no preachers, there were just men (and women) in the earth that feared God and sought to keep his commandments...God judged men by the heart during that time. When Moses came (long after he killed the Egyptian) and Israel was brought out of Egypt they were then given the Commandments (there were more then 10...a lot more...read leviticus) thats when God began to require then men live by laws...like "Thou shalt not kill..." You couldn't imagine a period of lawlessness...everything you believe, all your morals are based on the society you live in and for better or worse a lot of western thought is based on Christianity (The 10 commandments). God made man so that he could make her own choices, some chose to serve him, and some chose to completely ignore his existence, God receives his glory when people acknowledge him independent of a reward...a lot of religions are based on the whole reward structure but it isn't until you love God unconditionally that you could ever hope for a reward...every person that you mentioned had to die (i.e. they did not go directly to heaven) because of sin...they merited a resurrection though in Matt. 27:52 after the day of pentecost...
While I'm being pedantic, Jesus doesn't say a damn thing about reading the book. The text clearly makes him of the opinion that adult males should be well read in the Torah, which was common belief among the Jews of the time. But of course, all of the books in which he appears as a character were written well after his death. None of them put words in his mouth saying "Hey, after I die, they're going to write gospels about me - read them, since they'll tell you what I want you to do."
You're absolutely right...the New Testiment was written after Jesus' death...I don't see how that invalidates it though. He absolutely told his 12 Apostles to write his words down, and to preach them in all the other which they did dutifully for 40 years...The Old Testiment is a "shadow" of the New Testiment. If you never read the Old Tesiment you'd never know the reason why Jesus had to come. These are words that came from John but could just have easily been said by Jesus himself Rev. 1:3 "Blessed is he that readeth , and they that hear the words of this prophecy and keep those things which are writtin therin for the time is at hand."
As far as Jesus goes, he made the fig tree whither as an allegory of something else that I could explain now but it would be of no consequence because you wouldn't believe me anyway.
As far as Jesus goes, he made the fig tree whither as an allegory of something else that I could explain now but it would be of no consequence because you wouldn't believe me anyway.
You're right, I almost certainly wouldn't believe you. I think most of what you just posted is pure nonsense.
But I think you misunderstand why I wouldn't believe you. Everything you've posted on this entire topic has adopted the stance that the bible is fundamentally true - that, if one could just grasp the "right" interpretation, it would all be perfectly clear.
You take the existence of your god and the basic stories of the bible as axiomatic - and as far as I can tell, you then adopt the circular logic that because the bible tells these stories, it shows the bible to be trustworthy.
I consider that to be faulty logic all the way around. The existence of gods cannot be an axiom - it's in no way self-evident. At best, it's a hypothesis that should be subjected to intense scrutiny.
The other part of the picture is that you seem to demand that the hypothesis that your god exists and has all the attributes you say should stand on exactly the same footing as the hypothesis that there's no such entity. That, too, is faulty logic. It doesn't require a single shred of evidence to disbelieve. Russell's Teapot is the paradigmatic example of that.
Belief on the other hand, should be supported by evidence.
I want to make something else clear. I don't condone Christianity as a whole and neither does God...(There's my bold statement of the day) he hasn't forgotten about the millions of people that were killed during the Middle Ages (Dark Ages) in "the name of God" or the way man has divided himself on every side in his name...Man will find reasons to separate themselves, here in America it happened to be race, Religion, and Political affiliation...in other countries...its something else. Don't blame man's problems on God though. God never meant for there to be confusion about his word, he knew it would happen though, which is the reason why he so readily prophesied about his own death..he knew people would be so upset by his controversial doctrine that they would chose to kill him...funny thing is people are still killing him today...figuratively speaking.
Just face it...you may have a command of Programming but having a rational thought about your own existance is out of your scope...it frustrates you to the point that if someone offers a perspective you shun them and say things like "faith makes smart people dumb". If I had only that statement to judge you from I could say the same thing.
Don't blame man's problems on God though.
Wouldn't think of it. I don't put blame on imaginary entities.
Man's unjustified belief in god deserves quite a hefty share of blame for the problems, though.
Frankly, in the Middle Ages - probably even until the Enlightenment - belief in deities could legitimately be called justified. There simply wasn't a good alternative to explain much of the observable world. That's no longer true.
As I mentioned elsewhere, "the gods did it" is never a valid scientific explanation - not because science is inherently atheistic, it's not. It's not an acceptable answer because it explains far too much. For example, it serves as a perfectly good explanation as to why people weigh only half as much inside churches.
he knew people would be so upset by his controversial doctrine that they would chose to kill him
Revisionist. Even the biblical text makes it pretty obvious that the Jesus character was executed for inciting rebellion.
Just face it...you may have a command of Programming but having a rational thought about your own existance is out of your scope...it frustrates you to the point that if someone offers a perspective you shun them and say things like "faith makes smart people dumb".
Sorry, but that's just nonsense. You haven't "offered a perspective" - you came in here spouting dogma. Dogma I examined and rejected years ago.
The contrary, the evidence is that you haven't got a rational thought about your existence. Your mommy told you that Jesus loves you and that Santa brought the presents, and you believed it. I guess you didn't get the memo on one of those.
You don't still believe in Santa, do you?
Again too true. You're being pedantic. How about putting it that the book itself says that it contains His will? And He just has quotes in it stating that to know the will of God is to know God (I think it is like John 7:17). That better? I apologize if my brevity hurt the point I was trying to make.
As for the other points regarding Christianity in general, again I agree. It is just that the fundamentalists are the ones that get on my nerves. A lot of the other sects at least keep their beliefs more to themselves. I have nothing against personal belief if it doesn't infringe on my life.
There's a whole lot of discussion that could take place about your synopsis of the Torah/Old Testament, but really, no one really cares. Those who believe the interpretation you put forth are unwilling to view it any differently (and even with those nuances, the book is still a big book of genocide and murder), and those that disagree probably didn't even read the whole paragraph after the first sentence anyway.
Jesus magically kills a fig tree because it doesn't have fruit - out of season.
I see this brought up all the time, but is there something inherently wrong with "killing" a fig tree, I mean for any reason at all? It isn't really that hard to see the point that Jesus was making (whether you agree or not), and I don't really think it is immoral to kill a plant to make a point.
But yeah, if people actually knew what was in the Bible, I think they would be surprised (horrified?) by what they found. And what they say they believe.
I'm being pedantic exclusively because you haven't demonstrated a subjective view of the material that I was referencing (the bible) why talk about intervals if you havent made it thru derivatives yet. And yes, your right no one cares...I merely posted the comment as a clear and concise answer to The Question...whether you liked it or not is of no consequence. I think there are fundamentalist that articulate their beliefs religiously, but not nearly as religiously as I was just opposed over the last day or so...most of your "so-called" fundamentalist realize that their beliefs are eccentric and therefore are quite reserved...what I find curious is the "religion" of theophobia...its like people make so many assumptions about what will happen if they just considered a religion...rightfully so, many of the worlds wars and revolutions have been fought (and will continue to be fought) in the name of religion but there is no logical reason other then fear to shun it as an option or alternative. The word Religion has a negative connotation in Christianity because Christ never meant for people to be closed minded, thats why he ate with the "publicans and sinners", he didn't see them the way mainstream religion during that time did...anyway...enough said.
I also I want to say that people are afraid of what they don't understand...the bible has a lot of killings and abominable acts. But as I alluded to earlier you're judging a lot of things based on what you believe to be wrong, based on your own Western ethical structure. The bible is a history book as well as a guide, and no one that I know with any type of rationale reads the bible and says, you know the lesson I got from Abraham taking his son to get killed is...go kill someone. Doubtless there are people out there who interpret things that way, but that can be said about any book thats ever been written. If you read through the entire bible and all you can get is Moses killed somebody and Jesus killed a random tree then...even from an intellectual perspective its pedantic ;-)
What do I mean about theophobics being pedantic and cynical? Here are some things that concern me. Some of the major themes in the bible are Sin, redemption, obedience, and Love...most people who take a critical look at the elements of the bible that I have talked with have a lot of trouble articulating opinions on these subjects...if you took the time to explore these themes in the bible not only would they answer your questions about every "negative" thing you find in the bible but it might in fact assist in answering "The Question"
The bible is a history book as well as a guide, and no one that I know with any type of rationale reads the bible and says, you know the lesson I got from Abraham taking his son to get killed is...go kill someone.
That may well be. But plenty read "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" and burned women at the stake. Today, there's less burning (thanks to secular restraints on religious stupidity), but people still occasionally read "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" as justifying hate crimes against neo-pagans.
People take their religious beliefs seriously. Even the stupid beliefs. People take doctrines against abortion as justification for murdering doctors. They take doctrines against homosexuality as justification for gay-bashing.
You may say that these are "false beliefs", or you may be among the jackasses who think this kind of behavior is justified. That's the whole problem - those beliefs are all taken from one big stupid pile. They're not based on reality, they're based on pure superstitions from thousands of years ago.
Here are some things that concern me. Some of the major themes in the bible are Sin, redemption, obedience, and Love
I don't dispute that there are occasionally passages in there that are of some value. But they're mixed in there with the other major themes in the bible - xenophobia, violence, genocide, and hatred. You don't get to say "the bible is the word of god and that word is 'love'" - the word is also "hate".
I do judge the bible from the perspective of a modern Western ethical structure, and I say it leaves a hell of a lot to be desired. If you think the bible is the last word in morality, then I'd say you know nothing of the subject.
Of course I pick out all the negative items in the bible. There are too damn many people like yourself who only want to sell the easy bits and ignore the nasty bits. I don't have to tell people that "Jesus loves them", there are plenty of people out there to tell them that. But they also deserve to know that Jesus is supposed to have said "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters - yes, even his own life - he cannot be my disciple".
Religion is about dividing people up. It's about "us" vs "them" - "the chosen of the gods" vs "the eternally damned". There's not a single worthwhile thing to be found in religion that can't be found outside of it.
My response was to Scott... not you. My post was in no way even referencing you. Maybe the structure of the Onerd comments confused you.
But I fail to see why a subjective view is necessary. Subjective means :
1. existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought (opposed to objective).
2. pertaining to or characteristic of an individual; personal; individual: a subjective evaluation.
3. placing excessive emphasis on one's own moods, attitudes, opinions, etc.; unduly egocentric.
4. Philosophy. relating to or of the nature of an object as it is known in the mind as distinct from a thing in itself.
I guess I see a connection with the 4th one, but since I haven't really ever attempted to answer any of you posts or claims, I will just let it pass.
But I fail to see why a subjective view is necessary. Subjective means :
I think you answered your own question...if you read the definitions (as opposed to a simple copy and paste) here is more jargon on objectivity vs subjectivity, this extracted from a wiki
Objectivity and subjectivity
The concept of objectivity in philosophy does not necessarily entail notions about a neutral point of view, as the term is defined in such disciplines as journalism. A neutral point of view, here, requires that one does not personally take a point of view, that is, that one represent all sides of the story without personal observation or conjecture. By contrast, it is possible to be philosophically objective in presenting or describing a controversial or novel point of view.
Another long standing debate on the idea of the subject vs the object is here
Basically, what I'm asking you to do is take hold of your own opinions...stop reading the bible the way you would a Math book (objectively, it doesn't matter what you think or feel or how the math influences you...its true.) you can't pick out random scriptures and stories in it and condemn in based on them...its not logical from a theoretic or historical perspective, the bible's books span thousands of years and survived every major civilization...people interacted differently with God 4000 years ago then they do now, and DOUBTLESS there were atheist then but I doubt they entertained any of the point-of-views upon which you now stand. The bible is valid material, people are the problem...thats all I'm saying its people that are the problem...Religious fanatics and Atheists alike...
You realize that I am not scottb right? It seems like you are having an argument with me that I am not even involved with.
Also, while you may hold that I must already accept that something is true before reading it, I must disagree. No search for truth can ever begin with the decision that whatever I find in the book in question is truth. That is just far too circular a reasoning to seem that helpful to me.
I understand that people acted differently in times past. I even understand a lot what you are saying. But I am curious... what exactly is the point of view upon which I now stand? I don't believe that I have ever stated it, other than many Christians would be surprised by what is in the bible. Maybe you are having a hard time since I am an anonymous poster and you are getting me confused... Kind of hard to see why this discussion is happening.
I believe you are correct. I have gotten you confused...probably because you posted anonymously...didn't mean to define your point of view before giving you the opportunity to state it...thanks for the clarification. I would not want to make generalizations about anyone...atheists, theologists, communists, capitalists, and realists alike...I think all of us have a little of all of that inside...again...sorry.
It was definately Scotts words that I was referrening to when I made refrence to the "point of view upon which you now stand" namely this part:
I think it would be more than just the fundamentalists who'd take the hit. There are a lot of things in there that'd make most people think twice about allegiance to Christianity in general.
Abraham was perfectly willing to murder his newborn son if the angel hadn't intervened, and he's praised for this. The first thing Moses does when he shows up in the book as an adult is to murder a slave overseer. Lot and his family are deemed worth of saving from the destruction of Sodom, and in the very next scene, his daughters get him drunk and seduce him. The very same daughters that he had offered to be raped by the Sodomite gangs. Jephthah promises to sacrifice the very first thing he sees on returning successfully home from committing genocide in Yahweh's name, only to discover that the "first thing" is his only child - so he sacrifices her (burns her to death) and no angel comes to intervene like with Abraham. Some kids make fun of Elisha's baldness, so Yahweh sends two bears from the forest to kill all forty-two of them. Jesus magically kills a fig tree because it doesn't have fruit - out of season.
These are just some of the more prominent stories that come to mind. There's a whole lot of that crap in there.
To the point about evangelicals - I find it interesting that biblical literacy studies show that evangelicals are no more likely to be knowledgeable about it than any other group of Christians.
Those would have been mute points 4000 years ago...and atheist (back then) probably couldn't stand on these arguments, mostly because they didn't live in a society dominated by democracy or laws or even well defined structures that we have now...thats what I was saying.
I agree with the anonymous poster. The "subjective" view isn't really helpful here.
Sure, I can see why you'd encourage people to abandon their rational faculties and indulge in unrestrained emotionalism - it's easier to make a sale when people are in a heightened emotional state. Advertising 101.
But subjective views aren't particularly helpful for discerning truth.
Yes - scripture has emotionally satisfying elements. That's why it's lasted so long. What it lacks is objectively truthful elements. Who cares that it makes you feel goods if it's false?
people interacted differently with God 4000 years ago then they do now, and DOUBTLESS there were atheist then but I doubt they entertained any of the point-of-views upon which you now stand.
Since it was my point of view to which you were referring, and not the anonymous poster's, I'll throw in my two cents.
So what if ancient atheists had different reasons for their atheism? Ancient physicists had different ideas than modern ones, too. The idea that there should be any connection between them is silly. Atheism is the absence of a particular kind of belief - we still have to struggle with many of the same questions that theists so glibly whitewash over with their "god hypothesis". Since we're not defined by holding some particular belief, it's only to be expected that the specific ideas we have for answering the "hard questions" are going to change as we learn more.
We know so much more today than even a few hundred years ago. It would be kind of pathetic if our beliefs hadn't changed.
Hell - even Christians, who are defined by holding a particular class of beliefs have changed those beliefs over the years. It's extremely unlikely that early Christians held beliefs that were substantially similar to your own.
The bible is valid material, people are the problem...thats all I'm saying its people that are the problem...Religious fanatics and Atheists alike...
I don't consider the bible particularly "valid" for anything. But yes - people are the problem. And people are the solution - not gods.
Its curious to me how you condemn the ENTIRE bible with such passion...you haven't addressed the book specifically at all...and it doesn't sound as though you've made any attempts to disprove that the answer the "The Question" isn't in it, I wasn't even talking about the entire "vial" bible, lol. The bible is a history book, most of whats in there can be proven against what you might call mainstream history...I cannot begin to fathom why you'd trust one book written 2000 years ago over another...Do you believe that Israel left Egypt, or that it was sacked in 568 BC by Babylon or that a person named Jesus existed. Can you tell me specifically what you don't believe about the "vile" bible...there are 66 books and 40 some-odd authors in that book, which one specifically don't you like? In any case its a valid book of books and will continue to be so.
Its curious to me how you condemn the ENTIRE bible with such passion
I've read it all, I've no problem condemning it all.
you haven't addressed the book specifically at all
If you mean I haven't addressed Ecclesiastes specifically, so what?
It's an interesting little book - I find it amusing how it forces apologists like yourself to have to deal with the contradictions it provides. After all, it says that "the wise man" (the believer) is destined for the same fate as "the fool" (the nonbeliever). It denies that one can know what happens after death. It says you live your life, you die, and that's that. You don't get to know what happens in the world after your time, and the author of the book doesn't even hint that he believes there's any kind of afterlife.
So, to sum up, I'd say it pretty much contradicts a huge chunk of what you say you believe. Of course, you'll go in and twist the words around to show how it "really" says something completely different than what the words themselves say. That's the main reason I'm not usually very interested in discussing the particulars of scripture. It's a pointless exercise - believers make up whatever meaning they want to assign to it.
The bible is a history book, most of whats in there can be proven against what you might call mainstream history
It's a pretty lousy history book. There's not particularly strong agreement even on when most of it was written. The physical evidence to corroborate it is extremely thin, and scholars are thoroughly divided on it. And they're divided exactly along the lines you'd expect - conservatives who think you start from assuming the bible's correct and force fit the physical evidence into providing corroboration, and liberals who think you start from the evidence to see what it tells you, and who say there's very little that can be legitimately corroborated.
Assuming the bible to be correct is just bad scholarship, in my opinion.
Do you believe that Israel left Egypt, or that it was sacked in 568 BC by Babylon or that a person named Jesus existed
Difficult questions. I think there's suspiciously little evidence of the Egyptian captivity and the Exodus. That part of the world is so thick with archaeologists that you can't swing a dead cat without hitting a couple, and they can't find much evidence of any significant number of Jews wandering anywhere for forty years - certainly not the roughly two million that Exodus suggests. The population of Canaan is estimated at less than a hundred thousand, and there's no sign of a significant increase that would imply the arrival of the Jews.
I expect the sack of Jerusalem in 587 BCE likely did happen - there's at least corroborating evidence for that.
As to whether there was an actual person corresponding to the biblical Jesus, I think there's again virtually no evidence. While most bible scholars do assume there was such a person, I think there are very plausible scenarios as to how the New Testament texts could have come about without there being any such person. Certainly not conclusive, but plausible.
Personally, I prefer the "Jesus as fiction" explanations - but I'm honest enough to say that I'm technically agnostic on that subject.
That said, even if there were such a person, it should go without saying that I think the virgin birth, the miracle stories, and the resurrection story are total mythology. Even if he existed, he wasn't a god.
In any case its a valid book of books and will continue to be so.
The works of Shakespeare may be great literature, but we don't teach history from them.
I have no problem with people reading the bible - or even managing to draw life lessons from it, though I seriously question whether it's reliable for that purpose. Viewing the bible as just a collection of old texts is harmless. Viewing it as a window to ultimate truth is not.
If you want to pull out some tenet of the bible and let it stand on its own merit, wonderful. But granting it some special status, simply because it appears in scripture, is just plain offensive.
If you mean I haven't addressed Ecclesiastes specifically, so what?
It's an interesting little book - I find it amusing how it forces apologists like yourself to have to deal with the contradictions it provides. After all, it says that "the wise man" (the believer) is destined for the same fate as "the fool" (the nonbeliever). It denies that one can know what happens after death. It says you live your life, you die, and that's that. You don't get to know what happens in the world after your time, and the author of the book doesn't even hint that he believes there's any kind of afterlife.
So, to sum up, I'd say it pretty much contradicts a huge chunk of what you say you believe. Of course, you'll go in and twist the words around to show how it "really" says something completely different than what the words themselves say. That's the main reason I'm not usually very interested in discussing the particulars of scripture. It's a pointless exercise - believers make up
The Meaning of Life by smcbride :: NR6 :: on 23 November 2007
Interesting link:http://users.aristotle.net/~diogenes/meaning1.htm
RE: The Meaning of Life by Anonymous :: NR0 :: on 29 November 2007
Survive!