2008-02-18, 00:34 | Link #341 | |
Nani ?
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Emerald Forest ( yes its a real place. )
|
Quote:
The basic premise behind the dilemma is: Is the definition of good defined by God's will, or not ? Wikipedia has a fairly accurate article on it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma For the sake of argument, I was assuming that the answer to the Dilemma was the latter ( Good is defined by God's will ) and the point of my post was to prove that even with an objective definition of what is "Good" is defined by a God, as subjective beings it means nothing to us and thus as far as were concerned due to our level of understanding-the answer is in fact the former ( The Definition of Good is not defined by God and is a more subjective term with a fuzzy definition, like you are saying ) Think of it as a logical "Even if your right, you are still wrong." trap for all the moral absolutists out there. Last edited by Edgewalker; 2008-02-18 at 00:46. |
|
2008-02-18, 00:41 | Link #342 |
Domo Ori Gato Mr. Roboto
Author
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Village Hidden in the Leaves
Age: 31
|
Sorry I haven't read all of the other posts, and that this isn't on topic witht he current discussion. I just wanted to say that I'm Christian and believe that there is a God, Holy Spirit, and that Jesus walked the earth and died for our sins. I try to live a good life and hope that on day I get to go to Heaven and rejoin lost loved ones and live in eternal happiness, but I also look at it this way, even if there is no god of any kind and it all was just an accident, at least I lived a good life and was a good person.
__________________
|
2008-02-18, 00:43 | Link #343 | |
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
Author
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 66
|
Quote:
The reason people say what they say is because that's what they mean: Example "I have no religion" --- the person belongs to no organized belief system, has no doctrine, no gods. They may have a *moral* or *ethical* system that requires no supernatural components. Example "religion is bad for you" --- it may be their opinion that religious beliefs are no different than some form of delusion, madness, or hallucination, which sometimes lead people to do bad things to themselves (Jonestown mass-suicide) or to others (Islamic cult extremists). Don't abuse the word religion by watering down its meaning.
__________________
|
|
2008-02-18, 00:48 | Link #344 | |
Moving in circles
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Singapore
Age: 49
|
Quote:
|
|
2008-02-18, 02:15 | Link #346 | ||||||
9wiki
Scanlator
|
Quote:
Now, on that subject of morality... Due to browser-quirkiness, I missed Edgewater's great post (this should be a required thought process for any religious person) and edited [url]my previous post] without seeing some of the discussion that had taken place before my edit. Just taking some quotes to establish context (I didn't ignore the rest of the posts, I promise!).... Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
In Christianity/Judaism, the moral framework isn't just based on "God's whim", but is a set of "operating recommendations" for the world God created. Based on that, religion isn't necessary for a moral framework; all you'd need are observational skills and critical thinking (which is how half of the moral framework of these religions made it into the religions in the first place). I originally wrote that in opposition to the expressed opinion that morality was not found outside religion. I think it has some relevance here. In Judeo-Christian terms (I get tired of writing that disclaimer, but I fear the consequences not stating it), the idea isn't that God arbitrarily decides what He does or does not want people to do, but that He designed the world to operate in particular ways and that he loves the beings that inhabit His world. To put it broadly, morality is derived from understanding the participation (good) or disruption (evil) of these procedures and the balance they provide and, separately, from advisement/commandment of God, Himself. Those are two separate concepts, though, because what God has told us to do does not always line up with the first concept of morality. Why would that be? "The lesser of two evils", essentially. Essentially, God has either made commandments or given advisements/laws along the way that are sad concessions to the depravity of man, with these decidedly a better alternative to mankind being unable to live up to the higher standard. Quote:
Even if one thinks that the texts are divinely inspired history rather than a case of "winners write the history books", one cannot in good conscience read from it the idea that humans can take it upon themselves to decide to do similar acts. (For numerous reasons that I won't go into here, but not something most people--religionists or critics--catch from skimming the text out of context). I am guessing that we share some opinions on the applicability of the Old Testament to personal morality, but I imagine we might get there via different paths. I do agree that the Roman Empire "joining the game" in Christianity was a major turning point. I wouldn't say the religion changed, though... I'd say that it was a major event in the process that eventually developed into a second religion--and not one I ascribe to. (Which is essentially just another way of saying "They screwed it up even more than it already had been." ) Quote:
When it's Biblically stated that God did something, it's not really implied that He acted directly but instead that He orchestrated it using means that wouldn't break His self-propelled design. He delegated, so to speak. I'd liken it to some one saying that Donald Trump built a hotel: It's not that Mr. Trump physically did it himself--he had other people do it for him--but we generally only credit him unless we have reason to specify the intermediaries. This is really getting pretty deep into it (despite the glossed-over explanations I'm giving), but it's an important distinction when discussing some of the things mentioned here.
__________________
Last edited by Kyuusai; 2008-02-18 at 02:29. |
||||||
2008-02-18, 03:11 | Link #347 | |||
Asuki-tan Kairin ↓
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Fürth (GER)
Age: 43
|
Quote:
Now science is inherently much more sound in terms of logic than any religion, which makes it more plausible, but not free of faith/belief. Quote:
Atheist are as devoted to the concept of science as devoted christians are to god. Quote:
Does it really? I know people like to feel special and tend to separate themselves from each other in terms of uniqueness/diversity. But if one reduces and abstracts all traits of a single human enough, basic traits remain, that are valid for every mentally healthy human. Only the intensities of the traits vary.
__________________
|
|||
2008-02-18, 03:26 | Link #348 | |
I disagree with you all.
Join Date: Dec 2005
|
Quote:
Now, basically, whether God exists or not makes no practical difference. The Sun will rise and fall at predictable times, catastrophes will be natural phenomenons, and so on. Back then? If the OT is to be believed, God could reach out and stop the Sun, and disasters were God's way of showing his temper. |
|
2008-02-18, 06:12 | Link #349 | |
eyewitness
Join Date: Jan 2007
|
Quote:
People are normally rather devoted to soccer than to science. To my knowledge, this hasn't led to excommunication of a soccer fan yet.
__________________
Last edited by Slice of Life; 2008-02-18 at 06:29. |
|
2008-02-18, 10:54 | Link #350 | |
Asuki-tan Kairin ↓
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Fürth (GER)
Age: 43
|
Quote:
People who claim to be atheist (which by definition means, they believe that god does not exist) are often agnostics or something else (still in the decission phase or between classifyable domains). Would you agree if I said true atheists, instead?
__________________
|
|
2008-02-18, 12:27 | Link #353 | |
9wiki
Scanlator
|
Quote:
The amount of divine intervention seen in the Bible covers a very small amount considering the number of years it covers. When all you get are the highlights, it sounds like a lot happened on a regular basis, but these were actually rare events, and rarely effected any one outside of the parties involved. Even what is described as the sun stopping would not require the earth to cease rotating for the observers to note a similar effect. Keep in mind that I'm not suggesting that divine intervention (by proxy, of course) does not occur today. Deeper Christian understanding, though, would suggest that after the death of Christ it might actually be less necessary due to the availability of restoration to man.
__________________
|
|
2008-02-18, 14:29 | Link #354 |
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
Author
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 66
|
Kyuusai is providing excellent insight into a side of Christianity that gets swamped out by the obnoxious, word-twisting "literalists" which I don't feel too badly if I offend.
The James Dobson, Pat Robertson, Falwell, etc cabal of noises that *assert* they represent "real" Christianity - when they more accurately represent something else entirely. Its unfortunate that Kyuusai's and similar modern theological viewpoints don't get more airtime. @all: And again... people are incorrectly intermingling "belief" in a religion with other kinds of "believe". Saying "I believe this hammer will fall because of the predictions of Gravitational Theory" is using "believe" equivalent to "assume". It can be tested and validated by anyone who cares to run the numbers. Saying "I think Evolution and Natural Selection are true phenomenom." is equivalent to saying "That's the best explanation that fits the facts so far." Saying that you "believe" in it is being loose with the word. Natural Selection Theory can be quantified and mathematically modeled. Saying "I believe in God (or whatever) and that he does X" cannot be either mathematically verified nor tested. It *relies* on pure faith. Equating "belief" in the results of science and "belief" in religion is a fundamental failure to understand the difference (or a conscious attempt to subvert the playing field).
__________________
|
2008-02-18, 15:47 | Link #355 | ||||
I disagree with you all.
Join Date: Dec 2005
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Unless it's all metaphor, I suppose. There was no global flood, Jesus never performed any miracle, and so on. But in that case, I have to ask, what the point? What's the point of having a revealed theology if you have to hammer it into the preconceived shape of your understanding of the world? |
||||
2008-02-18, 15:59 | Link #356 |
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
Author
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 66
|
Anh, you might want to actually read up on modern Christian theology (sometimes called progressive Christianity and has significant connection to Deism) rather than have poor Kyuusai try to explain the entirety in a forum format. O.o
And why are you calling his understanding a "preconceived shape"? Or the Bible "revealed theology"? It *contains* revelatory information, but it also contains the mythological history of the tribe we call the Jews in the OT.. and the NT is a collection of writings that both describe the tales of Jesus and various people's thoughts on what Christianity means. Modern Christian study takes the OT as a collection of apocryphal tales scattered across the years (the Dead Sea Scrolls have really given what was previously thought a major twist ... but the new information has been pretty much buried or ignored by much of the evangelical factions). The NT (and to some extent, the gospels left out of the NT when the Council at Nicea decided which books were useful for their purposes) are all considered and studied in determining one's 'best path' but many of the anecdotes fundamentally contradict each other as one might expect in such a collected set of stories. 'bible inerrancy' and 'literalism' doesn't fare well under the spotlight of christian modern biblical research. Somewhat like stories of the Buddha or the collected writings of Hindu ... you'll have figurative and metaphorical factions that study the "truths" of the stories as well as literalists who assert actuality. Got any book pointers, Kyuusai?
__________________
Last edited by Vexx; 2008-02-18 at 16:28. |
2008-02-18, 16:31 | Link #357 |
I disagree with you all.
Join Date: Dec 2005
|
What, so the Bible isn't the revealed Word of God, but a mixed bag of bullshit and grossly deformed historical facts?
Then, once again, what's the point? I mean, as a story collection, even a bunch as Aesopian fables, I can kinda see it. But as a Holy Book? |
2008-02-18, 17:00 | Link #358 |
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
Author
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 66
|
Okay.. never mind. I was trying to be civil but apparently you aren't. Now you're just being an ass, sidestepping the information presented, and putting words into another's mouth. Something can be a "revealed truth" without actually being factual.
Or are you going to go after the collected writings of all religions the same way? Like the Hindu writings (Vedas) that convey the essence of Hinduism? The apocryphal tales of Buddha (siddhartha)? ?? At least that would be consistent in its uncivility. Hell, even Richard Dawkins (the loud genetic scientist atheist) understands the Campbellian importance of religious writings and stories even though he thinks religion itself is a form of lunacy.
__________________
Last edited by Vexx; 2008-02-18 at 17:15. |
2008-02-18, 17:07 | Link #359 |
moo
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Earth, the planet of stuff
Age: 30
|
"What, so the Bible isn't the revealed Word of God, but a mixed bag of bullshit and grossly deformed historical facts?"
No. They're probably Prehistoric Fairy Tales, and, going to Church is no bigger a deal than Story Time. In case you didn't notice, That was sarcasm. |
Tags |
not a debate, philosophy, religion |
|
|