[luke warm]

Winstonm, on Jun 1 2008, 06:48 PM, said:

A queston on human sacrifice, or atonement, which is a staple of Christianity.
If I understand this theory correctly, man cannot stand in the presence of God because of man's imperfections, or sins - as God is Himself perfect - therefore there had to be a perfect sacrifice to eliminate these flaws.

It seems not even God can overcome the laws of logic: i.e., He cannot be God, and also not be God; He cannot be perfect, and also be not perfect.

But there seems to me some conflict. We are told that Jesus was both man and God - but does that not contradict the Laws of Logic? How could Jesus be God, and also be not God (man)? If Jesus was God (perfect), how could he abide sinners(imperfection) in his presence at the same time? The Laws of Logic state this cannot occur, that you cannot be perfect, and also be not perfect.

Unless as God your were all-powerful and could obviate the need to abide by the Laws of Logic.

So, if Jesus were God and man at the same time, which is the Christian argument, then it would mean that God's power could overcome the Laws of Logic, which would mean that a logical reason for atonement would not be necessary.

If there is no logical need for atonement, then what is its purpose?

the doctrine of the trinity is one of the hardest to grasp, and not just for non-christians... i struggle with it myself... the key about atonement is to understand that one of God's attributes is justice... man (in adam) willingly chose to disobey God and obey satan... i have to go for now, so i only have time for a little, but for God to simply undo what was done would have violated his sense of justice... so he had to purchase us from satan... had adam not sinned this would not have been necessary, so Jesus (same God, different person) took the place of adam, much as adam took the place for all mankind... Jesus did what adam didn't do... gotta go, i'm sure you know all of this anyway

[Winstonm]

Quote

for you to be correct tell me what warrant you can give for truth and evolution to be necessary for survival... he is simply saying, and his proof is compelling, that evolution is an epistemic defeater for naturalism...

Jimmy, Did you read the critique that Richard provided? I did. Now, some things about me in order to grasp the significance of my reading the critique: first, I have never studied logic anywhere, not once, not ever; second, the last time I was in a mathematics class was in 1966, Algebra II, and I hated it; third, when an idea is presented as an equation, a film comes over my eyes and I start drooling; fourth, the only thing I know about "R" is that it is used as a movie rating.

Now, even with those handicaps, I understood and could readily see the inconsistencies in the Plantinga's arguments. It would seem to me that someone of your philosophically-trained background could easily pick holes in the arguments as easily as did Richard.

[Codo]

I really don`t know where you asll get your view of christians from, maybe tehy are very different from the guys I know.

Here where I life, these are facts:

1. The bible is no historical book. It is plain silly to take it as a source of truth in the sense of what really happened.
Its is the Holy book and you can take a lot of truth from it for your life. But it is common sense here that this book contains myths.

They writers tried to paint a picture. They tried to tell stories to "Produce" believers. They tried to show how a man should be, they tried to describe their view of God. They did not write down real history.

This does by no means say that everything is a myth. But it is impossible to take any word and any story for real.

2. Of course all churches abused their power to get even more influence. They tried to make their followers as something special. So what is new with this concept? Every given community does the same: They use their vocabulary, their colours, their rules and their commitments to be different.
This is true for all churches, for most companies, for all kindergardens, soccer clubs, etc. etc.

3. The fact the human abused religion for real cruel crimes and the fact that their are more then one major religion besides thousands of minor religions does not disprove God.

4. That our logic is not suitabnle for HIM is a long known fact. My nicest quesiton was: God should build a stone so big that he is not able to hold it.
If he cannot build it, he is not allmighty. If he can build it but not hold it, he is not almighty.
This is our logic, why should He follow the same rules? Or maybe almighty is not almighty, mabye this word was used to describe a power which goes beyond describtion in our world? Maybe it was just a word used as an advertisment like "World Seires" for a local sports event?

[helene_t]

Roland, this is how I understand Christianity, too. Very well put.

[luke warm]

Winstonm, on Jun 1 2008, 09:48 PM, said:

Quote

for you to be correct tell me what warrant you can give for truth and evolution to be necessary for survival... he is simply saying, and his proof is compelling, that evolution is an epistemic defeater for naturalism...

Jimmy, Did you read the critique that Richard provided? I did. Now, some things about me in order to grasp the significance of my reading the critique: first, I have never studied logic anywhere, not once, not ever; second, the last time I was in a mathematics class was in 1966, Algebra II, and I hated it; third, when an idea is presented as an equation, a film comes over my eyes and I start drooling; fourth, the only thing I know about "R" is that it is used as a movie rating.

Now, even with those handicaps, I understood and could readily see the inconsistencies in the Plantinga's arguments. It would seem to me that someone of your philosophically-trained background could easily pick holes in the arguments as easily as did Richard.

i have to go to work but let me ask this first.. i'll try to find time to answer you more specifically.. in your opinion, does the content of a true belief enter the causal chain leading to behavior, or does it not?

[mikeh]

Codo, on Jun 2 2008, 03:54 AM, said:

I really don`t know where you asll get your view of christians from, maybe tehy are very different from the guys I know.

Here where I life, these are facts:

1. The bible is no historical book. It is plain silly to take it as a source of truth in the sense of what really happened.
Its is the Holy book and you can take a lot of truth from it for your life. But it is common sense here that this book contains myths.

They writers tried to paint a picture. They tried to tell stories to "Produce" believers. They tried to show how a man should be, they tried to describe their view of God. They did not write down real history.

This does by no means say that everything is a myth. But it is impossible to take any word and any story for real.

2.  Of course all churches abused their power to get even more influence. They tried to make their followers as something special. So what is new with this concept? Every given community does the same: They use their vocabulary, their colours, their rules and their commitments to be different.
This is true for all churches, for most companies, for all kindergardens, soccer clubs, etc. etc.

3. The fact the human abused religion for real cruel crimes and the fact that their are more then one major religion besides thousands of minor religions does not disprove God.

4. That our logic is not suitabnle for HIM is a long known fact. My nicest quesiton was: God should build a stone so big that he is not able to hold it.
If he cannot build it, he is not allmighty. If he can build it but not hold it, he is not almighty.
This is our logic, why should He follow the same rules? Or maybe almighty is not almighty, mabye this word was used to describe a power which goes beyond describtion in our world? Maybe it was just a word used as an advertisment like "World Seires" for a local sports event?

Thank you for your post(s). Your view of christianity seems (to me) to be closer to it being a moral code rather than a religion, and it appears to be a moral code to which 1st world atheists would aspire as strongly as your brand of christian.

It is almost certainly my ignorance speaking when I feel forced to ask: why are you a christian at all?

Your holy book is a collection of historical facts mixed with and distorted by myth. Its lessons resonate with the innate moral sense that evolution fostered in our species, but so to do the lessons of many other belief structures (hardly surprising when one considers that it is at least a possibility that religion followed the evolution of morality rather than the other way around).

You do not take many of the stories as true. But, I have to ask... how does a christian know which stories are literally true and which are partly true and which are complete fabrications?

It seems to me (and I may be mistaken, for which I apologize) that you recognize that many parts of the holy book once fervently believed by christians to be literally true are false.

Thus Genesis is not literally true. And mankind did not coexist with the dinosaurs, altho there are millions, and I mean millions of so-called educated Americans who truly believe that they did.

It seems to me that open-minded, educated christians are compelled to admit that the interpretation of the bible has changed in response to the advance of secular knowledge. Parts of the bible formerly held to be literal truth are now treated as allegorical or mythological... not because the bible has changed but because the theologians involved in the changes recognized that the earlier beliefs were so demonstrably silly, in light of new secular knowledge, that holding to them would soon lead to a mass loss of faith.

The problem, for this bending with the wind approach, is that it undermines the certainty that is the strongest foundation of faith. Revealed wisdom looks especially silly (at least to outsiders) when it is subject to reinterpretation or new revelations, conveniently crafted to patch an immediate problem.

But to the open-minded believer.. I ask... the doctrines of your church have changed innumerable times over the past 2000 years, and appear destined to change in the future. Much of what you now believe to be valid will be ruled invalid by later generations of believers.

And I think that you (perhaps unlike Lukewarm, as an example... and lest LW get further bent out of shape, I concede that he recognizes that some atheists can be moral, but he persistently argues that faith is the basis of morality) can see that atheists are able to hold to moral codes at least as compassionate and merciful as those of most religionists... I know of no atheists who tortured and murdered believers, but believers have routinely butchered heretics and non-believers.

So if you don't need faith in order to be moral, and if your faith changes with the wind of secular understanding... why be a christian at all?

Is it not possible to suppose that there is some form of 'god' concept that in some manner created the universe... while recognizing that our human religions arose utterly independent of that concept and that the gods of our religions have no identity with that other god concept?

Then one may reject all religions without having to abandon the belief that there are mysteries beyond the ability of science (and, perhaps) our species to ever understand.

I don't personally see any need to indulge in such a god concept, while still retaining a sense of awe at the mystery of existence. But I recognize that I may be in error on this point The good news is that I'll never know the answer.

[PassedOut]

mikeh, on Jun 2 2008, 11:03 AM, said:

Thank you for your post(s). Your view of christianity seems (to me) to be closer to it being a moral code rather than a religion, and it appears to be a moral code to which 1st world atheists would aspire as strongly as your brand of christian.

I think mikeh has it right.

The moral code advocated by Jesus in the beatitudes (which was drawn from earlier sources) -- if actually practiced by most christians --would improve the quality of life in the world. I think the world has been influenced positively by many of the sayings attributed to Jesus and to other religious figures. The bible contains many stories designed to illustrate the principles of good behavior.

The problem comes when people insist that those stories must be literally true. Roland clearly sees the bible with a clear perspective, and I gather that the folks he associates with do also. I wish more of the christians in the US had the same common sense.

[helene_t]

MikeH said:

Your holy book is a collection of historical facts mixed with and distorted by myth. [....] how does a christian know which stories are literally true and which are partly true and which are complete fabrications?

Lol, that's the whole point of Roland's post as I read it: the myths convey a moral lesson. They are not to be treated as history.

Couldn't you find a more value-neutral word than "distorted"?

[mike777]

I think one must believe that the core of these stories are literally true or that these guys are deceitful cruel liars or power mongers or insane.

As many posters have pointed out there is literally no evidence for almost all of this stuff. Something is going on that 3 religions came out of Abraham waiting for 100 years to have a kid and then when he had the son he took him up on a rock and pulled a knife ready to butcher him all from some Voice of God telling him to.......This is the founding story of 3 major religions.


In the Old Testament these guys really thought they were prophets of a literal God.
Jesus says he is God, literally the God. Peter, Mathhew, John and others claim to see all kinds of literal miracles and preach that you will literally rise from the dead.
The list goes on and on.

This Paul guy says he has vision after vision and voices......talking to him.


OF course that does not mean that there may be alot of symbolism in the writing but to gloss over the bible and its teachings as only a code of ethics or morality is not logical.

Keep in mind these guys are literally promising an eternal life in Heaven and rising literally from the dead with a literal involved Supreme Being.

It is logical to say they may be insane or deluded or trying to control the masses through some mass illusion or deceit. In which case everything they write can be dismissed as lies.

Otherwise the result you have is for thousands and thousands of years you got people saying......hey these guys are nuts but what the heck lets follow the teachings anyway compared to what we do now.

[mikeh]

helene_t, on Jun 2 2008, 12:12 PM, said:

MikeH said:

Your holy book is a collection of historical facts mixed with and distorted by myth. [....] how does a christian know which stories are literally true and which are partly true and which are complete fabrications?

Lol, that's the whole point of Roland's post as I read it: the myths convey a moral lesson. They are not to be treated as history.

Couldn't you find a more value-neutral word than "distorted"?

A valid criticism, especially since the language I employed reads as if all of the historical facts contained in the bible have been 'distorted', and I have no reason to suggest that.

'historical facts mixed with and sometimes rendered inaccurate or misleading by mythological story-telling' would have been a more temperate and appropriate phrase.

[luke warm]

mike777, on Jun 2 2008, 12:26 PM, said:

I think one must believe that the core of these stories are literally true or that these guys are deceitful cruel liars or power mongers or insane.

As many posters have pointed out there is literally no evidence for almost all of this stuff. Something is going on that 3 religions came out of Abraham waiting for 100 years to have a kid and then when he had the son he took him up on a rock and pulled a knife ready to butcher him all from some Voice of God telling him to.......This is the founding story of 3 major religions.


In the Old Testament these guys really thought they were prophets of a literal God.
Jesus says he is God, literally the God. Peter, Mathew, John and others claim to see all kinds of literal miracles and preach that you will literally rise from the dead.
The list goes on and on.

This Paul guys says he has vision after vision and voices......talking to him.


OF course that does not mean that there may be alot of symbolism in the writing but to gloss over the bible and its teachings as only a code of ethics or morality is not logical.

Keep in mind these guys are literally promising an eternal life in Heavan and rising literally from the dead with a literal involved Supreme Being.

It is logical to say they may be insane or deluded or trying to control the masses through some mass illusion or deceit. In which case everything they write can be dismissed as lies.

Otherwise the result you have is for thousands and thousands of years you got people saying......hey these guys are nuts but what the heck lets follow the teachings anyway compared to what we do now.

ayup

[Codo]

mikeh, on Jun 3 2008, 01:03 AM, said:

Thank you for your post(s). Your view of christianity seems (to me) to be closer to it being a moral code rather than a religion, and it appears to be a moral code to which 1st world atheists would aspire as strongly as your brand of christian.

It is almost certainly my ignorance speaking when I feel forced to ask: why are you a christian at all?

Short answer: I am simply a believer.

A longer one:
When I was a student, I did not feel good with my religion, so I searched for something new and better. I talked to catholics, mormons, scientologist and others. Nothing convinced me. Too strict rules, too much borders to other believers. F.E: I always had problems to understand why an almighty God needs a human being as his voice to the world, so I had to refuse to believe in most of the worlds leading religions.
So I returned to my old church and understood that they are different and open.
And I really love the idea of life after death, of Gods grace etc.

Quote

You do not take many of the stories as true. But, I have to ask... how does a christian know which stories are literally true and which are partly true and which are complete fabrications?

Stephen Hawkings believes that the creation of the world was: At first there was just darkness, then there was a light (explotion) then planets, then water and land then plants then animals and at last mankind- seems like a valid explanation and is remarkably close to what the Bible said. I don't take the 6 days as days in our sense.

For other stories: I think that there was a flood like in Noahs history, but it was a regional flood, just "worldwide" in the limited sense of the people who lived there. I believe that there had been a family called methusalem who had influence for 968 years.
There are many more plausible explanations for the stories behind the written lines.

Or as a bottom line: I believe that most stories base on a true story but are by no way literally true.

Quote

It seems to me that open-minded, educated christians are compelled to admit that the interpretation of the bible has changed in response to the advance of secular knowledge. Parts of the bible formerly held to be literal truth are now treated as allegorical or mythological... not because the bible has changed but because the theologians involved in the changes recognized that the earlier beliefs were so demonstrably silly, in light of new secular knowledge, that holding to them would soon lead to a mass loss of faith.

Everything develops. Politics, science, culture, etc. So why should religion stay as it had been in the middle age?

Quote

... I know of no atheists who tortured and murdered believers, but believers have routinely butchered heretics and non-believers.

So if you don't need faith in order to be moral, and if your faith changes with the wind of secular understanding... why be a christian at all?

I doubt that the military junta in Myamar is religious, but they torture there inhabitants.
The chinese communist party is not known for their religion too, Mao was an atheist an butchered millions. As was Stalin.
So, to buitcher and slaughter others is not part of religion but part of mankind. This is sad but still a fact. Maybe we can overcome this in the next centuries.

And for your question: I am a believer. I simply believe that there is a God and that life is more then just a joke of nature.
And why shouldn't my believes develop to different views in my lifetime? My view of politics, bridge and nearly any single issue of my life changed during the years. So why should religion stay as it was in acient times?

What should be the same through the years are the basic ethics. And hopefully we are better in follow them in this century then we had been in the last.

Quote

Is it not possible to suppose that there is some form of 'god' concept that in some manner created the universe... while recognizing that our human religions arose utterly independent of that concept and that the gods of our religions have no identity with that other god concept?

Then one may reject all religions without having to abandon the belief that there are mysteries beyond the ability of science (and, perhaps) our species to ever understand.

I don't personally see any need to indulge in such a god concept, while still retaining a sense of awe at the mystery of existence. But I recognize that I may be in error on this point   The good news is that I'll never know the answer.

It is absolute a logical plausible possibility that your believes are right and the religion had been found by human leaders to get more followers and to explain the not explainable to there tribe. I do respect this believe as long as you respect my different point of view.

And that is why we can talk about religion without too many dumb statements and personal attacks, even if we are on quite different side of the fence in the basic POV.

[Al_U_Card]

luke warm, on Jun 2 2008, 02:19 PM, said:

mike777, on Jun 2 2008, 12:26 PM, said:

Otherwise the result you have is for thousands and thousands of years you got people saying......hey these guys are nuts but what the heck lets follow the teachings anyway compared to what we do now.

ayup

WHAT? The human race has been nuts for thousands of years???? Well, that would explain the killings and the wars and the sects and the yada yada yada....

Insanity is, by definition, the extreme (or rather the outlier) of model or standard behavior.

Well, I guess that lets me off the hook. No religion, no need for one. A moral and ethical code based on first principles and self-preservation relative to the social norm.

Now will someone help me release the clasps on the back of this white jacket?

[helene_t]

A moral code based on self-preservation? What are you smoking, Al?

[Winstonm]

Quote

i have to go to work but let me ask this first.. i'll try to find time to answer you more specifically.. in your opinion, does the content of a true belief enter the causal chain leading to behavior, or does it not?

I have no opinion on this as I have never considered it - but now I will try.

It would make sense to me that the content of a true belief could enter in a causal chain leading to behavior.

Now, let me re-ask my question - why is it that someone like me, with no formal training at all, can understand the problems with Plantinga's arguments, while someone like yourself, presenting yourself as studied in logic, seem to have difficulty grasping the flaws as presented in the critique?

[helene_t]

Winstonm, on Jun 3 2008, 01:23 AM, said:

It would make sense to me that the content of a true belief could enter in a causal chain leading to behavior.

For example, if I make a play consistent with a belief in restricted choice it is likely (though not evident) that my play was caused by my belief.

OTOH if I am a Mac user and believe the Apple mouse to impose less RSI risk on the user than does the Logitech mouse, it is more likely (though not evident) to be a case of cognitive dissonance, i.e. I "chose" to believe in the Apple mouse in order to make myself comfortable with my choice.

(At least that is what the theory says, I am personally somewhat skeptical towards that theory. I prefer the explanation that I believe in Apple mouse in order to strengthen my promotion of the mouse towards other computer users. But that's just me, I am no expert in this field. And maybe the two theories do not contradict each other).

So "could" is the key word IMHO.

[Al_U_Card]

helene_t, on Jun 2 2008, 04:46 PM, said:

A moral code based on self-preservation? What are you smoking, Al?

Reminds me of the quote from "The Mask".....lol

Don't need to Helene.

All that is needed is to discard your way of thinking and develop a way of being.

[helene_t]

Al_U_Card, on Jun 3 2008, 10:47 AM, said:

All that is needed is to discard your way of thinking and develop a way of being.

Thanks for the tip but given the choice I prefer marijuana

[helene_t]

Jlall, on Jun 3 2008, 11:30 AM, said:

Did people do acid or shrooms back then?

Yes. Red mushrooms were popular among the vikings (ok, that is a millennium later). As for acid, there were some archaeologists who presented evidence in Scientific American a few years ago that the women who served at the Oracle of Delphi were heavily stoned.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=gaseou...issions-at-orac