The 'Childishness' Of The Bible

Abrahamic religion, you know, the one with the cross...

Moderators: Blip, DarthHelmet86

Re: The 'Childishness' Of The Bible

#241  Postby redwhine » Dec 11, 2013 11:02 am

willhud9 wrote: I am saying that when you or Redwhine made the claim that God cannot change an absolute you also made a contradiction as an omnipotent thing can do anything including changing the unchangable.

I never made that claim. Stop fucking lying. If something can be changed it is not, and never was, unchangable.
Like BEER? ...Click here!

What do I believe?

Atheism is myth understood.
User avatar
redwhine
 
Posts: 7815
Age: 67
Male

Country: England
England (eng)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: The 'Childishness' Of The Bible

#242  Postby Greyman » Dec 11, 2013 11:20 am

Inn theology, worms can change they're meanness too whatever ewe want them two mean. God's pair-a-socks!
"And, isn't sanity really just a one-trick pony anyway? I mean all you get is one trick, rational thinking, but when you're good and crazy, oooh, oooh, oooh, the sky is the limit." - T. Tick.
User avatar
Greyman
 
Name: Graham
Posts: 493
Age: 52

Country: Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: The 'Childishness' Of The Bible

#243  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Dec 11, 2013 2:05 pm

willhud9 wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
willhud9 wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:

No. That's not how it works.
We don't need to know exactly what a rock is to call the object that we observe a rock.


Right but God can change the object we call a rock into something else which we would still call a rock because God is able to do that.

Only if it would still look exactly the same.
And that doesn't change abstract concepts like absolute.

willhud9 wrote:
We have defined unchangeability as absolute.
That is what absolute means.


Yes, we have defined it as such. God can bypass that definition and change an absolute thing while retaining the absoluteness of it.

He really can't Will. That's a contradiction in terms.
A circle can never be square. God might be able to turn a circle into a square, but it'll be a square then, not a circle.


You are right it is a contradiction.Paradox. Not just any kind of contradiction. If God is omnipotent he can make a circle be a square and a square be a circle. But since circles can never be squares and squares never be circles it creates a paradox.

So you admit morality cannot be absolute if it's based on the changing opinion of god?

willhud9 wrote:
Likewise he cannot change an absolute, as that would mean it isn't an absolute in the first place and certainly not after god altered it.
It's basic linguistics and logic.


Again logic means nothing when dealing with the concept of an Omnipotent God.

It does, if you want to have a rational discussion.

willhud9 wrote:"A paradox is a statement that apparently contradicts itself and yet might be true. Most logical paradoxes are known to be invalid arguments but are still valuable in promoting critical thinking."

Except that in this case it isn't a matter of argument but of definition.
By definition an absolute cannot be changed.
God changing an absolute doesn't prove he's omnipotent, it proves the absolute was never an absolute to begin with.

willhud9 wrote:I am not arguing that God can do any of this or that you are wrong in your definition. I am saying that when you or Redwhine made the claim that God cannot change an absolute you also made a contradiction as an omnipotent thing can do anything including changing the unchangable.

Except that he can't. It's not a matter of argument it's a matter of definition.
Just like the existence of a married bachelor is impossible.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 30879
Age: 31
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: The 'Childishness' Of The Bible

#244  Postby Onyx8 » Dec 11, 2013 4:37 pm

God is speshul.
The problem with fantasies is you can't really insist that everyone else believes in yours, the other problem with fantasies is that most believers of fantasies eventually get around to doing exactly that.
User avatar
Onyx8
Moderator
 
Posts: 17520
Age: 64
Male

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: The 'Childishness' Of The Bible

#245  Postby Agrippina » Dec 11, 2013 4:49 pm

Onyx8 wrote:God is speshul.


Yep, his mother also thinks so. :thumbup:
Illegitimi non carborundum
User avatar
Agrippina
 
Posts: 36689
Age: 109
Female

Country: South Africa
South Africa (za)
Print view this post

Re: The 'Childishness' Of The Bible

#246  Postby Skinny Puppy » Dec 11, 2013 10:37 pm

willhud9 wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
willhud9 wrote:Yes absolute is defined as unchangeable to our limited human understanding.

It's got nothing to do with 'limited human understanding'.
It's the definition of the word.
We call unchangeable things absolute.


It is the definition of the word because we as humans understand it to be such. Again God's powers, being an omnipotent being, would transcend our logical or natural understanding. He can do the logically impossible. Therefore our limitations on our logic such as a mere definition are superseded by God's power. Plain and simple.

If you are going to say God changing a law he created means the law is no longer absolute than you are applying logic to a superlogical character. That logic is inconsequential to the fact that God can do things which go against our logic. The application of the logic in regards to the actions of an omnipotent cannot be achieved simply because the very nature of God transcends human logic.

You can protest all you want about the logic of it or how it is the definition, but since God can do anything and "anything" includes by definition "The ability to change the absolute while retaining its absolutism."

Unless God cannot do anything, but then what are God's limitations? How is that measured? What is that based around? The theological mess continues.

No, if you are going to argue with an apologist about the law, and absolutism you can't start by saying God cannot change the absolute because of a human definition. It makes no sense in the context of what a God is.


:this:

Right on the money Will!
User avatar
Skinny Puppy
 
Name: Sherlock Jeffrey Puppy
Posts: 9399
Age: 37
Male

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: The 'Childishness' Of The Bible

#247  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Dec 11, 2013 10:55 pm

Skinny Puppy wrote:
willhud9 wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
willhud9 wrote:Yes absolute is defined as unchangeable to our limited human understanding.

It's got nothing to do with 'limited human understanding'.
It's the definition of the word.
We call unchangeable things absolute.


It is the definition of the word because we as humans understand it to be such. Again God's powers, being an omnipotent being, would transcend our logical or natural understanding. He can do the logically impossible. Therefore our limitations on our logic such as a mere definition are superseded by God's power. Plain and simple.

If you are going to say God changing a law he created means the law is no longer absolute than you are applying logic to a superlogical character. That logic is inconsequential to the fact that God can do things which go against our logic. The application of the logic in regards to the actions of an omnipotent cannot be achieved simply because the very nature of God transcends human logic.

You can protest all you want about the logic of it or how it is the definition, but since God can do anything and "anything" includes by definition "The ability to change the absolute while retaining its absolutism."

Unless God cannot do anything, but then what are God's limitations? How is that measured? What is that based around? The theological mess continues.

No, if you are going to argue with an apologist about the law, and absolutism you can't start by saying God cannot change the absolute because of a human definition. It makes no sense in the context of what a God is.


:this:

Right on the money Will!

You're kidding right?
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 30879
Age: 31
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: The 'Childishness' Of The Bible

#248  Postby Animavore » Dec 11, 2013 10:59 pm

I guess it makes more sense to ex-fundies :dunno:
A most evolved electron.
User avatar
Animavore
 
Name: The Scribbler
Posts: 44023
Age: 41
Male

Ireland (ie)
Print view this post

Re: The 'Childishness' Of The Bible

#249  Postby Skinny Puppy » Dec 11, 2013 11:02 pm

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Skinny Puppy wrote:
willhud9 wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
It's got nothing to do with 'limited human understanding'.
It's the definition of the word.
We call unchangeable things absolute.


It is the definition of the word because we as humans understand it to be such. Again God's powers, being an omnipotent being, would transcend our logical or natural understanding. He can do the logically impossible. Therefore our limitations on our logic such as a mere definition are superseded by God's power. Plain and simple.

If you are going to say God changing a law he created means the law is no longer absolute than you are applying logic to a superlogical character. That logic is inconsequential to the fact that God can do things which go against our logic. The application of the logic in regards to the actions of an omnipotent cannot be achieved simply because the very nature of God transcends human logic.

You can protest all you want about the logic of it or how it is the definition, but since God can do anything and "anything" includes by definition "The ability to change the absolute while retaining its absolutism."

Unless God cannot do anything, but then what are God's limitations? How is that measured? What is that based around? The theological mess continues.

No, if you are going to argue with an apologist about the law, and absolutism you can't start by saying God cannot change the absolute because of a human definition. It makes no sense in the context of what a God is.


:this:

Right on the money Will!


You're kidding right?


No, I'm deadly serious. Will is making some absolutely correct points.

I have to go for supper right now, I'll get back to this thread later. One quick point...

Look at QM, it is totally illogical (not all, some of it) yet it is the most spectacularly successful theory we've ever had, but much of it defies "our" logic. Nature doesn't care about our logic so we must accept that our logic is severely flawed and we are only capable of limited logical thinking.
User avatar
Skinny Puppy
 
Name: Sherlock Jeffrey Puppy
Posts: 9399
Age: 37
Male

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: The 'Childishness' Of The Bible

#250  Postby THWOTH » Dec 11, 2013 11:53 pm

Skinny Puppy wrote:You can protest all you want about the logic of it or how it is the definition, but since God can do anything and "anything" includes by definition "The ability to change the absolute while retaining its absolutism."

This is logically inconsistent because it renders all concepts essentially meaningless - the concept of the 'absolute' as that which is absolutely definite and completely unquestionable always applies unless God decides it doesn't. The point of this brand of apologetics is ultimately to exempt God from any and all criticism by declaring him the most marvellously awesomely magnificently wonderfully amazingly fabulously all-powerful being like evah!. Of course, in the terse tabanacular of the pious that's usually boiled down to blandishments like 'God is unfathomable' or 'unknowable.' A handy get out wouldn't you say?
"No-one is exempt from speaking nonsense – the only misfortune is to do it solemnly."
Michel de Montaigne, Essais, 1580
User avatar
THWOTH
RS Donator
 
Name: Penrose
Posts: 37109
Age: 55

Country: Untied Kingdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: The 'Childishness' Of The Bible

#251  Postby Skinny Puppy » Dec 12, 2013 2:57 am

THWOTH wrote:
Skinny Puppy wrote:You can protest all you want about the logic of it or how it is the definition, but since God can do anything and "anything" includes by definition "The ability to change the absolute while retaining its absolutism."

This is logically inconsistent because it renders all concepts essentially meaningless - the concept of the 'absolute' as that which is absolutely definite and completely unquestionable always applies unless God decides it doesn't. The point of this brand of apologetics is ultimately to exempt God from any and all criticism by declaring him the most marvellously awesomely magnificently wonderfully amazingly fabulously all-powerful being like evah!. Of course, in the terse tabanacular of the pious that's usually boiled down to blandishments like 'God is unfathomable' or 'unknowable.' A handy get out wouldn't you say?


You’re quoting the wrong person. ;)
User avatar
Skinny Puppy
 
Name: Sherlock Jeffrey Puppy
Posts: 9399
Age: 37
Male

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: The 'Childishness' Of The Bible

#252  Postby Skinny Puppy » Dec 12, 2013 3:03 am

I don’t want to turn this into a science thread, but these are only real-life examples that I can think of at the moment are in regards to QM.

This is a very important quote:
"Anyone who says that they understand Quantum Mechanics does not understand Quantum Mechanics"-Richard Feynman


It’s so simply put... and so true. One need only look at quantum tunneling (and its implications) or entanglement or even the double-slit experiment (wave-particle duality) to show how much our so called logic fails us.

How can something be in two places at once? Impossible by our “logic”, but again, our logic fails us and it is now a reality.*

Okay, back to god. How can we, with defective logical abilities, make assumptions and apply conditions and/or limitations to the ultimate logic machine (GOD)?

The answer is we simply can’t.




*(Ref: U.S. physicist David Wineland and France's Serge Haroche who shared the 2012 Nobel Prize in physics.)
User avatar
Skinny Puppy
 
Name: Sherlock Jeffrey Puppy
Posts: 9399
Age: 37
Male

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: The 'Childishness' Of The Bible

#253  Postby Greyman » Dec 12, 2013 3:56 am

It is not logic which fails us about quantum mechanics. Every conclusion in QM follows logically from its premise, and every premise is justifiable on basis of evidentiary observation.

What fails us is intuition. The observations are quite counter intuitive. Things are observed to happen on QM scales that we just would not expect to happen because our intuition developed to model the world at the macro scale.

But we can understand what's happening through the mathematical calculations we derived logically from the observations. At least, we can make useable predictions.
"And, isn't sanity really just a one-trick pony anyway? I mean all you get is one trick, rational thinking, but when you're good and crazy, oooh, oooh, oooh, the sky is the limit." - T. Tick.
User avatar
Greyman
 
Name: Graham
Posts: 493
Age: 52

Country: Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: The 'Childishness' Of The Bible

#254  Postby Skinny Puppy » Dec 12, 2013 4:19 am

I disagree; we don’t understand the world on the macro scale. We stand roughly ½ way between the micro and the macro (ballpark, since we really don’t know the true extend of the macro... or micro for that matter since we stop at the Planck length (and M-Theory is still a mathematical theory)). We can extend our ken X powers of 10 in both directions, but we fall flat when we try to go too far.

And... how does one particle send a signal to another particle on the other side of the universe, instantaneous? That defies logic, not intuition, and in the example I gave, how can something be in two places at the same time? How can I walk through a 1 meter solid steel barrier? And so on.

However, I don’t want to turn this into science, so I’d best stick with keeping it within the realm of theology.

My Bad. :oops:
User avatar
Skinny Puppy
 
Name: Sherlock Jeffrey Puppy
Posts: 9399
Age: 37
Male

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: The 'Childishness' Of The Bible

#255  Postby willhud9 » Dec 12, 2013 4:41 am

Yep yep. Quantum mechanics are by its nature uncertain and logic defying. If we can have quantum mechanics defy logic, I see no reason why God cannot.
Fear is a choice you embrace
Your only truth
Tribal poetry
Witchcraft filling your void
Lust for fantasy
Male necrocracy
Every child worthy of a better tale
User avatar
willhud9
 
Name: William
Posts: 19332
Age: 29
Male

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: The 'Childishness' Of The Bible

#256  Postby Greyman » Dec 12, 2013 5:46 am

Skinny Puppy wrote:However, I don’t want to turn this into science, so I’d best stick with keeping it within the realm of theology.
But that would be fruitless, wouldn't it? Logic and intuition are the only tools theology has. If you admit they don't allow you to comprehend things that evidently happen, how can you trust them to inform you about that which is not even evident?

What's your reasoning? "It failed me when tested, therefore ... it won't fail when it can't be tested?"
"And, isn't sanity really just a one-trick pony anyway? I mean all you get is one trick, rational thinking, but when you're good and crazy, oooh, oooh, oooh, the sky is the limit." - T. Tick.
User avatar
Greyman
 
Name: Graham
Posts: 493
Age: 52

Country: Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: The 'Childishness' Of The Bible

#257  Postby lyingcheat » Dec 12, 2013 9:05 am

CharlieM wrote;
Have you heard of allegory? You won't find the deeper truths in the Bible by taking a literal interpretation of it. Read what Paul says in Galations 4, from verse 21:

Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law? For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise. Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar (Hagar). For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.


The path of the Hebrew people is the clearest example of the descent of the self-conscious ego into physical life on earth. Abraham, the father of the Hebrew people, has two sons. After 42 generations, via one son, Christ appears. The self conscious ego has been developing within the Hebrew people and manifests as its culmination in Christ. Through the other line Agar gives Moses commandments from without. By passing on these external Laws to his people, Moses is preparing them for the proper descent of the ego from within. The bondage of the Hebrew people in Egypt and in Babylon is all part of this allegory.


And...

CharlieM wrote;
If, as some would say, the Old Testament stories are composed with no regard for historical accuracy, then what is their prime purpose. Their allegorical significance is more important than the history. Stories of the Hebrew people overcoming other peoples who follow "false Gods" signify the ego, the rational self, overcoming the lower passions. When they are held captive and then escape captivity and reach the Promised Land, then this signifies the ego's escape from bondage to the lower passions and achieving a state of moral responsibility.
(my emphasis)


With an appropriate bias in place, combined with a 'creative approach' and some linguistic gymnastics if required, any message can be read into any text.

Here, for instance, is an example of Sam Harris discovering a deeply significant spiritual message in a cookbook.
Of secondary interest is the fact that his 'divine interpretation' of this text echoes, in a mundanely comical way, the second paragraph of yours I've quoted (and emphasised) above wherein you give an 'interpretation' of the 'allegorical significance' of something you quaintly refer to as 'the Old Testament'.



No doubt, many students of Christian, Muslim, and Jewish esoterica will claim that my literal reading of their scriptures betrays my ignorance of their spiritual import. To be sure, occult, alchemical, and conventionally mystical interpretations of various passages in the Bible and the Koran are as old as the texts themselves, but the problem with such hermeneutical efforts - whether it be the highly dubious theory of gematria (the translation of the Hebrew letters of the Torah into their numerical equivalents so that numerologists can work their interpretive magic upon the text) or the glib symbol seeking of popular scholars like Joseph Campbell - is that they are perfectly unconstrained by the contents of the texts themselves. One can interpret every text in such a way as to yield almost any mystical or occult instruction.

A case in point: I have selected another book at random, this time from the cookbook aisle of a bookstore. The book is A Taste of Hawaii: New Cooking from the Crossroads of the Pacific. Therein I have discovered an as yet uncelebrated mystical treatise. While it appears to be a recipe for wok-seared fish and shrimp cakes with ogo-tomato relish, we need only study its list of ingredients to know that we are in the presence of an unrivaled spiritual intelligence:

snapper filet, cubed
3 teaspoons chopped scallions
salt and freshly ground black pepper
a dash of cayenne pepper
2 teaspoons chopped fresh ginger
1 teaspoon minced garlic
8 shrimp, peeled, deveined, and cubed
l/i cup heavy cream; 2 eggs, lightly beaten
3 teaspoons rice wine; 2 cups bread crumbs
3 tablespoons vegetable oil; 2 1/2 cups ogo tomato relish

The snapper filet, of course, is the individual himself - you and I - awash in the sea of existence. But here we find it cubed, which is to say that our situation must be remedied in all three dimensions of body, mind, and spirit.
Three teaspoons of chopped scallions further partakes of the cubic symmetry, suggesting that that which we need add to each level of our being by way of antidote comes likewise in equal proportions. The import of the passage is clear: the body, mind, and spirit need to be tended to with the same care.

Salt and freshly ground black pepper: here we have the perennial invocation of opposites - the white and the black aspects of our nature. Both good and evil must be understood if we would fulfill the recipe for spiritual life. Nothing, after all, can be excluded from the human experience (this seems to be a Tantric text). What is more, salt and pepper come to us in the form of grains, which is to say that our good and bad qualities are born of the tiniest actions. Thus, we are not good or evil in general, but only by virtue of innumerable moments, which color the stream of our being by force of repetition.

A dash of cayenne pepper, clearly, being of such robust color and flavor, this signifies the spiritual influence of an enlightened adept. What shall we make of the ambiguity of its measurement? How large is a dash? Here we must rely upon the wisdom of the universe at large. The teacher himself will know precisely what we need by way of instruction. And it is at just this point in the text that the ingredients that bespeak the heat of spiritua endeavor are added to the list - for after a dash of cayenne pepper, we find two teaspoons of chopped fresh ginger and one teaspoon of minced garlic. These form an isosceles trinity of sorts, signifying the two sides of our spiritual nature {male and female) united with the object meditation.

Next comes eight shrimp - peeled, deveined, and cubed. The eight shrimp, of course, represent the eight worldly concerns that every spiritual aspirant must decry: fame and shame; loss and gain; pleasure and pain; praise and blame. Each needs to be deveined, peeled, and cubed - that is, purged of its power to entrance us and incorporated on the path of practice.

__________o0~~0o_________


That such metaphorical acrobatics can be performed on almost any text - and that they are therefore meaningless - should be obvious. Here we have scripture as Rorschach blot: wherein the occultist can find his magical principles perfectly reflected; the conventional mystic can find his recipe for transcendence; and the totalitarian dogmatist can hear God telling him to suppress the intelligence and creativity of others.

From - Sam Harris - The End of Faith, notes to pages 210-220
(my emphasis)


Allegory... such a useful tool.
> Insert Witty Signature Phrase Here <
User avatar
lyingcheat
 
Posts: 423
Male

Country: Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: The 'Childishness' Of The Bible

#258  Postby redwhine » Dec 12, 2013 12:04 pm

redwhine wrote:
willhud9 wrote:If God can do anything than he can move an immovable object and retain the objects immovability. End of.

Name an immovable object that god can move, please.

Having trouble thinking of one, willhud9?

I'll make it easier for you by leaving god out of it. Name any immovable object, please.
Like BEER? ...Click here!

What do I believe?

Atheism is myth understood.
User avatar
redwhine
 
Posts: 7815
Age: 67
Male

Country: England
England (eng)
Print view this post

Re: The 'Childishness' Of The Bible

#259  Postby Greyman » Dec 12, 2013 12:54 pm

This "beyond logic" maneuver is a pretty neat trick.

If contradictions are encountered in logical argument its proof that the premises are false. But by being beyond logic, contradictions are paradoxes that prove how deeply mystical god is.

God can make an unmovable object and move it too. Wow.

God can be intrinsically good and the source of evil. Woo.

God can be all forgiving and condemn you to hell for not believing.

God can all loving and command atrocities.

God can be simultaneously omnipresent and nonexistant.

God can "go to jail, do not pass Go, do not collect $200," still collect $200 for passing Go, and play "get out of jail free" at the same time.

But the greatest trick about being beyond logic is convincing anybody that "being beyond logic" doesn't mean "devoid of reason to believe this bat shit crazy talk".
"And, isn't sanity really just a one-trick pony anyway? I mean all you get is one trick, rational thinking, but when you're good and crazy, oooh, oooh, oooh, the sky is the limit." - T. Tick.
User avatar
Greyman
 
Name: Graham
Posts: 493
Age: 52

Country: Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: The 'Childishness' Of The Bible

#260  Postby ElDiablo » Dec 12, 2013 1:52 pm

willhud9 wrote:Yep yep. Quantum mechanics are by its nature uncertain and logic defying. If we can have quantum mechanics defy logic, I see no reason why God cannot.

Please explain how the study of physics at an atomic level has anything to do with philosophizing about the properties of a human created entity.
God is silly putty.
User avatar
ElDiablo
 
Posts: 3124

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Christianity

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest