Theological Discussion

I really just don't know what you're talking about. When does He ask for my blood? Maybe you're talking about Jesus? I dunno...

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Ah the typical Isaac sacrifice.

Well, there are many reasons why God had demanded this.

First of all, looking at this from a psychological perspective, this was probably a call for him to perform act which would concrete his devotion to God. Of course God wouldn't let him go through with it, but this is not what Abraham was thinking. Abe's devotion to God is taken at a totally different level in his mind when he is goes off to do this. Actions can have a significant psychological effect upon a person.

Secondly, the matter of sacrifices in general is a matter of atonement for sins. Basically we all deserve to die, and then some. But instead, and I don't know how or why God does this, he will accept a replacement. This is why sacrifice is generally necessitated in atonement. Because we all deserve to die.
Yeah yeah yeah, I know you are going to complain about how this is "totally unfair" or "breeding a culture of fear, thus forcing people to believe in God" or other shit, and well... so what?
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is not true.
Just because someone in China is afraid to voice any opposition to the government, and they don't like it, does not mean that they are not disallowed from voicing opposition. Life is tough, and God is perhaps the closest thing to an exception.
Let us not also forget the possibility that the idea that we deserve to die might actually *gasp* be true. :-O

Also a third point:
It was setting the stage of sybolism in the Hebrew(and world's) understanding of what Jesus was going to do.
Abraham was supposed to be the father of many nations and many people. Isaac is representative of this. We, the people of the world similarly should be put to death. However, instead, a sacrificial lamb is provided by God. This is representative of Jesus, who came to take our place in death.

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by Minion

I really just don't know what you're talking about. When does He ask for my blood? Maybe you're talking about Jesus? I dunno...

See my last post on the previous page. Like I said, I have a lot of NOTES to go through on my end - please be patient.

Also, sacrifice, Fyodor, should never be included in atonement. No sir could be as horrible as making a person sacrifice their son to God. Such a loving God that he is.

Originally Posted by Fyodor

First of all, looking at this from a psychological perspective, this was probably a call for him to perform act which would concrete his devotion to God. Of course God wouldn't let him go through with it, but this is not what Abraham was thinking. Abe's devotion to God is taken at a totally different level in his mind when he is goes off to do this. Actions can have a significant psychological effect upon a person.

So murder is okay when you're concreting the devotion to your God?

In that same vein, I bet Allah loves suicide bombers! It all makes sense now!

Quote:

Secondly, the matter of sacrifices in general is a matter of atonement for sins. Basically we all deserve to die, and then some. But instead, and I don't know how or why God does this, he will accept a replacement. This is why sacrifice is generally necessitated in atonement. Because we all deserve to die.

You're actually justifying human sacrifice. I can not believe I am witnessing this.

Quote:

Yeah yeah yeah, I know you are going to complain about how this is "totally unfair" or "breeding a culture of fear, thus forcing people to believe in God" or other shit, and well... so what?

YOU believe in it. Not me, dude. I sure as hell know I would never buy into this. I am sorry, but, you know. WOW.

Quote:

Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is not true.

Just because you like it doesn't make it true.

Quote:

Just because someone in China is afraid to voice any opposition to the government, and they don't like it, does not mean that they are not disallowed from voicing opposition. Life is tough, and God is perhaps the closest thing to an exception.

Maybe in your world. (Wherever that is.)

Quote:

Let us not also forget the possibility that the idea that we deserve to die might actually *gasp* be true. :-O

How terribly HUMAN of you to say.

Things expire. ALL things expire, in time. Its nature. Not God. We don't die because we deserve it. We die because theres no way we could biologically last.

Quote:

Also a third point:
It was setting the stage of sybolism in the Hebrew(and world's) understanding of what Jesus was going to do.
Abraham was supposed to be the father of many nations and many people. Isaac is representative of this. We, the people of the world similarly should be put to death. However, instead, a sacrificial lamb is provided by God. This is representative of Jesus, who came to take our place in death.

A LAMB MAGICALLY APPEARS! HIS NAME IS JESUS.

He was KILLED on a cross because his people couldn't stand him, and then he magically came back to life! NECROMANCY IS AWESOME. It works for Satan! <3

Most amazing jew boots

I don't want to fight with anyone here, but do enjoy when people can talk about these things in a civil manner. The ever popular 'throw up your hands in a huff when asked to explain/defend one's position' tactics don't work. If someone is 'attacking' your points or your beliefs, then instead of just hoping they would understand and not even trying to defend your beliefs really seems like a cop-out.

Originally Posted by Fjordor

First of all, looking at this from a psychological perspective, this was probably a call for him to perform act which would concrete his devotion to God. Of course God wouldn't let him go through with it, but this is not what Abraham was thinking.

How do we know this? Ok, if we believe that God has demanded or requested this sacrifice, how do we know that 'of course' He wouldn't let Abraham go through with it? Is this because he is 'good'? And if so, then how can we assume that what is 'good' in our views (as moral humans) be the same as what is 'good' in God's view? As far as he is concerned the sacrifice may very well have been the right thing to do. How can we know that we aren't just projecting our personal subjective morals onto God, and guessing what he would do because it is what we believe a moral human would do?

Originally Posted by Fjordor

Secondly, the matter of sacrifices in general is a matter of atonement for sins. Basically we all deserve to die, and then some. But instead, and I don't know how or why God does this, he will accept a replacement. This is why sacrifice is generally necessitated in atonement. Because we all deserve to die.

We all deserve to die, and then some. This is a sentiment I've never quite understood. Are you sure? And if so, how do we know that we all deserve death, and worse?

Thanks to Fjordor and Minion for their explaining some of their views in this thread. Even if it does take some coaxing at times.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

I think we have an innate understanding of what is good according to God due to our being created in His image. Now, how badly that understanding gets corrupted by society is another story.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Minion

I think we have an innate understanding of what is good according to God due to our being created in His image. Now, how badly that understanding gets corrupted by society is another story.

If we've all got this understanding, then why are there such huge divides between what one person thinks is 'right', and what another thinks is 'right'? And how does it make sense that a society made entirely out of those that know a thing, would just somehow change and against that thing? Why would a room full of like-minded people just all of a sudden change their mind?

Also, just to be clear, your point is more or less that we know this thing, because we think we know it? Ie: We know what is 'good', as God would know a thing to be good, because we know that we were created in His image. And we know that we were created in His image because, we just know that we were created in his image? I don't mean to say there is anything wrong with circular reasoning when it comes to theology, I just to be sure that is the explanation.

I've always had trouble 'getting' such assumptions, and I know that those who hold them think of them as more than assumtions.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Alright, I was gonna sit this out & just read the comments, but eh, what the heck.

Anyway, concerning the "Test of Abraham." there's a viewpoint of which I'm part of that sees it as a window into who the enemy (or what we call Satan) is. While not getting into direct bible qoutes, I'll paraphrase.

God does not tempt people to do evil. Sacrificing another persons life is basically murder. So, seeing as God does not tempt us to sin (James 1:13), & that murder is a big sin (Exodus 20:13), as well as the fact, that after studying the old Testament, God always used some from, a focal point if you will (usually whenever you read the Angel of the Lord, it means Jesus, as does Archangel Michael. Sometimes using dreams, also a focal point) to interact with the world, & that a "Voice", not a form or dream, told Abraham to sacrifice Isaac (the word elohiym, translated as God in the chapter, is basically the Hebrew version of God/god), not the Angel of the Lord, who stopped it from happening. We can understand that it was probably some other entity, most likely Satan, that wanted Isaac killed.

Why you may ask, well becuase Isaac was the progenitor of the lineage that would bring about Christ. Isaac was not Christ, therefore, his sacrifice would acheive nothing.

Whew... & I agree about what's been said about hell, as far as it's not really a place of torment, or fire. It's distance from God, leading to complete destruction. In plain terms, you either make it to heaven, or you cease to exist. Which brings about free will, you can either believe in God, or not. What happens to a soul that doesn't make it is up for discussion. There are sections, the badder parts are for the "angels" that are there chained up (Jude 1:6). We aren't really given a whole lot about Hell, seeing as the whole point of the Bible is to keep us from going there. Though a real locale is used as a metaphor for hell. I forget what it's called, but it was a place that was lawless. Child sacrifices, loud drums, lot's of bad stuff.

Also, Satan, in the Bible, isn't really described too well. He may have been an angel, or not. The whole thing about Good & evil, & duality, is based on the assumption that without the devil, there'd be no balance. Evil was basically created, so that there would be a clear difference between God's way, & the other ways. If it was never created, evil would be part of perfection, alongside with good.
i.e. Without Good, evil would be perfection; without evil, good would be perfection.

Post is already to long so, yeah.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Except that anytime a word seems to be randomly capitlized ('Voice'), it's referring to the Jesus/God.

Also, a sacrifice is not murder, and God wasn't tempting Abraham to kill his own son. He was testing Abraham's faith. When God concluded that Abraham was indeed faithful enough to sacrifice his own son (Think about it, would you even think about sacrificing your own son for somebody you've never seen? Probably not. This shows just how strong Abraham's faith was.) God provided a lamb for the sacrifice instead. Isaac was never really in any danger, and was always in God's hands.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Which proves another point, what on person understands as one thing, someone else will understand as another.

And for the record, giving someone else's life (for whom you have no say in, even if God told you it was alright, because it contradicts everything else God stands for) is murder. The taking of someone else's life, other than accidental or in self defense is murder in the 10 commandments.

Though it really is a moot point. Though it makes a big difference to certain people. Really, what matters is that people that follow the teachings & Laws of the Kingdon of Heaven (Christianity) are good, humble people.

How ya doing, buddy?

Just for the record, Joker does not speak for me.

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by Da Joker

Though it really is a moot point. Though it makes a big difference to certain people. Really, what matters is that people that follow the teachings & Laws of the Kingdon of Heaven (Christianity) are good, humble people.

What a nice, sweeping generalization. That's like stating every Muslim wants to blow themselves up in a crowded building.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Quote:

This is why sacrifice is generally necessitated in atonement. Because we all deserve to die.

I like the more graphic version: Because God sees you mutilate an animal, spilling it's fresh blood upon the earth while the animal cries out in pain, He knows you are a faithful and true servant. Because otherwise, it might be unclear if you're faithful and true, and God better see something die by the end of the day, by George.

Quote:

We, the people of the world similarly should be put to death. However, instead, a sacrificial lamb is provided by God. This is representative of Jesus, who came to take our place in death.

You certainly have this fixation with needing to be put to death, which is what I find most bogus about Christianity. It's like one big guilt complex. People wouldn't believe in Christ if they weren't already convinced that they're worthless pieces of shit that deserve to die. It goes like this:

A) You were born into sin, therefore your life is worthless and you deserve to die regardless of how you live your life.

B) If you accept Jesus as your Savior and give your life over to Him, your soul is now everlasting.

You must believe A in order to go onto step B. This means Christianity can appeal only to those who feel they were born into sin and deserve to die regardless of their actions in life. In other words, Christianity's fundamental basis is rooted in the absolution of imaginary guilt (aka original sin). I've never felt this imaginary guilt, and I've never felt that anyone "should be put to death" simply because they were born. Christianity: claims that everyone deserves to die for no apparent reason while simultaneously claiming to be the most loving of Religions.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Quote:

If we've all got this understanding, then why are there such huge divides between what one person thinks is 'right', and what another thinks is 'right'? And how does it make sense that a society made entirely out of those that know a thing, would just somehow change and against that thing? Why would a room full of like-minded people just all of a sudden change their mind?

Well, that's the thing - we weren't all sitting in a room together. We all live our own separate lives and are confronted with different difficulties. For example, if you're an attractive person, you will have a greater burden of temptation when it comes to adultery than an ugly person. That doesn't mean that you don't know as well as I do that it's wrong, but you may end up justifying it for your own pleasure. And maybe you're a charismatic guy. You start leading people and forming your own community.

It's really not hard to imagine how people who start out the same way can end up split. Think about the people you hung out with in high school. How much different are they now than they were when you knew them?

About the "how do we know" questions. On my side of the debate, I take the Bible as a given and go about trying to show how it's plausible. So, I take "we were made in God image" as a given and I try to make sense of what it means first and then show how it is true. Every debate has to work this way. You can't prove anything without accepting something to be axiomatic first. It's not really circular reasoning; it's just faith.

The whole topic of God's image is one that I find really interesting, myself. I've given it, particularly, a lot of thought over the years.

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by Minion

I think we have an innate understanding of what is good according to God due to our being created in His image. Now, how badly that understanding gets corrupted by society is another story.

Maybe society created God.

You can not deny the possibility!

(Also, for more topics such as the determination of "good" and "evil," you'd do well to read a lot more than just the Bible. Nature essentially sets forth a code which we are bound to as creatures. There is one thing on this planet we can never lasso - nature.)

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Quote:

Nature essentially sets forth a code which we are bound to as creatures. There is one thing on this planet we can never lasso - nature.)

Sounds like religion to me. Are you asserting religion as fact?

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by Minion

Sounds like religion to me. Are you asserting religion as fact?

Depends.

How are we defining "fact."

And no - nature is not religion. At all. I am without religion. I am just an observer.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Nature is not, but perhaps your beliefs about nature are.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by Minion

Nature is not, but perhaps your beliefs about nature are.

Tell me what you know about my beliefs, sir. I assure you they aren't in any ancient books or archived texts. =/

FELIPE NO

Oh... because religion didn't exist before books. Whoops!

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by Minion

Oh... because religion didn't exist before books. Whoops!

Religion has been SPREAD VASTLY because of books, yes. World's most printed book in history, sir.

Anyways, answer the question. What do you know about my beliefs? Anything? At all? Do you care?

Think about where I am going with this.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

What do you really know about my beliefs? It's not quite as close to common knowledge as you might think. A book does not make a religion. What about Animists and Shamen?

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Ok Sass'm, I know little to nothing about your beliefs.

But now that you have piqued my curiosity, enlighten us.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Also, for the record, I was talking about more trivial things, like who was talking to Abraham as being moot. Heck, Solomon & Paul both basically said the same thing I just did about what really matters.

Which is another thing about religions in general. Lots of pople claim to be one thing or another, & never ever do any type of studying to actually see if what they really believe, is really what they believe. That goes for all religions. It's rare you find a person who has actually went so far as to question what they believe, & has done some foundational work.

For example, in my particular faith, there are people who are surface readers & pulpit learners, never thinking for themselves. Basically people that listen agree & go on with there lives. This has lead to many people to believe things that are never even in our Bible, i.e. Hell is fire & brimstone & the Devil is there, if you believe in Jesus you'll get "Raptured" up to heaven, you'll speak unintelligible jibberish & it will be from God himself. I could go on, but you get the point.

For example, Muslims. Muslims believe that whatever a prophet of Allah says, has to be true. They consider Jesus a prophet of Allah. By that reasoning, since in the gospel accounts of Jesus, he declares himself God in the flesh, they would have to accept him as such. Not that they do, but that's how it would go if they followed every point their belief states.

Also, Sass, I'm not to familiar with your faith, naturist I think you said a few posts back. Gaiaism I believe, or something else? Either way, I'm interested in hearing about it as well. This is a theological discussion. On that note will agree that, in a way, God is created by society. Basically whatvever a person believes becomes their own reality. Have you ever tried to tell someone something only to have them tell you your wrong & their right, even though you know that it's true. Pretty big generalization, I know, but hopfully you get the gist.

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by Fjordor

Ok Sass'm, I know little to nothing about your beliefs.

But now that you have piqued my curiosity, enlighten us.

Thats a complicated question. I don't think I could write it all down like you'd expect someone to write it all down. I've been kicking the thought around for a while (why I took so long to respond) and I really don't have faith or anything in any omniscient thing.

I believe in nothing, really. Because "to believe in" implies you put faith into something. So I guess I can honestly say I don't have faith in much.

I can, however, observe. And I can learn from my surroundings and find some undeniable truth in them.

For instance:
Man does absolutely nothing altruistic 99.9% of the time. I am still not decided on whether or not its all of the time. He is a very selfish creature, and where he can stand to gain, he will try his hardest for it. Like a true Earthling. ^_^

Another example:
Man desires control. This is caused by the ability to reason. The ability to reason originates in something I would rather really not go into here. I have my reasons. I am sure you can understand.

Man is uncomfortable with living as an animal. He sees a distinct separation between himself and animal - again, from the ability to reason.

They say the ability to reason is our survival technique. I think its a flaw in evolution.

But yea. I am a completely faithless person. This doesn't make me a BAD person. I abide by what *I* feel is right and wrong. I don't feel the need to have someone or something else think for me. I have a brain. I intend to use it.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Hey all! I was just reading a bit of Nietzsche, and I wanted to see if there were any current discussions on that branch of knowledge. I was about to make a seperate thread (As Philisophical discussion is varied enough from theologoical dissertions that it would warrant seperate discussion thread), but then I read Sassafrass's comment here, which seemed like a good springboard for questions I personally had. If this goes well I may well in fact still make a seperate thread, but for the mean-time:

WARNING: REQUIRES ATTENTION-SPAN. tl;dr people do not even attempt this clusterfuck of a post.

Originally Posted by Sassafrass

I believe in nothing, really. Because "to believe in" implies you put faith into something. So I guess I can honestly say I don't have faith in much.

Interesting how I was just reading Nietzsche, who as some may or may not know was a proponent of pseudo-athiestic ideas, or at least challenging the existing (At his time) belief systems that major religions were throwing at the masses (I.E., "God is Dead", "The Superman", etc.,), and as a result, had little belief in a god, at least from his writings (I'm not that familular with his personal beliefs, so if I'm wrong on that, disregard this first observation).

I'll play devil's advocate for this, which my response relates to your below statement as well: I have a theory, (rather then a personal opinion), as I am not sure if I find it something I can cling to as a self-evident truth of this...but first a prolouge to set-up the basis for this theory: 'Faith' by traditional definition is what as described to be the opinion or shared near-fact (As Fact is also held in definition to be secular, I'll get to that in a moment) of what, in the secular society, cannot be proved to be fact, and rather is of 'suspension of DISbelief' to certain 'truths' and 'guidelines' of how otherwise defined areas of life by Fact, are replaced with explanations that are not shared by the secular and scientific minds or communities. In shorter words: Faith defines for itself and for those who share a common strong-willed opinion that which science cannot or willnot try to claim as a Truth.

Now for the actual theory
*ahem*

I have a theory that Faith can also include the secular areas, which are not dominated by religion, but operate in different forms and methods, and because the mass agreed definition of Faith exludes the possabiliyt of this, Faith and Fact are mutually exlusive to eachother. Meaning that the Fact of Faith is also the Faith of Fact, the Science of Reason is a belief system to those who hold the Religion of Belief. I apoligize for the lack of definite seperate words for these seperate areas, but that's what happens when you try and be inquisitive and mindful at 2am, haha.

Continuing to another quote of Sass:

Quote:

I can, however, observe. And I can learn from my surroundings and find some undeniable truth in them.

This is one of the basis and realms of Science and Fact, or Truth. "If I can see something, touch something, smell something and hear something, it must be existing and is real, and its state of existence to the world is a fact and is scientific" The previous is what in a longer form is what those holding themselves (NOT directed as you Sass) in Truth and Science have used to define (partially) what is real, what is truth, and is a tangent foundation of science.

Religion also has a basis for Truth, but in a different way and method. Most Religions (But not all) have a set goal. In Christinanity, Islam and Judaism (the Big Three) the goal is to ascend to Heaven upon mortal death after eliminating ones' Sins and join God in his kingdom for eternity. The 'goal' is also in Buddism: That you want to 'rise above' (Ascend) mortal imperfections (Sins) and rise above mortal death to a state of perfection and peace called Nirvana (Heaven).

But as I said earlier, my goal was earthly philosophy, not theology, so this shall be the extent of that specific religious reach.

Since Science and Religion (Or better to say, Fact and Belief, since Religion and Science are tenants of Fact and Belief) operate on different methods and views of defining what is real and what is truth, there is going to be a natrual adversion to operating in both methods.

However, Fact and Belief as I said above are tenants, meaning that they are ways for Religion and Science to operate... they are foundations for both 'ideologies' (For sincere lack of a better word)... and so there must be something more to what Fact and Belief are, rather then means for Religon and Science to operate.

This the core Theory: Fact = Belief, and Belief = Fact.
OR: Fact and Theory are intertwined and connected.

This leads me into the next comment by Sass:

Quote:

For instance:
Man does absolutely nothing altruistic 99.9% of the time. I am still not decided on whether or not its all of the time. He is a very selfish creature, and where he can stand to gain, he will try his hardest for it. Like a true Earthling. ^_^

The key term is selfish. Meaning that Man operates and drives to achieve things for his own wants and needs. Religion attempts to remove a portion of this way of operation by proclaiming that helping a fellow man is 'good' and is something to be rewarded for doing, (but only after going to heaven ), and only when you do not personally engage in helping others for your own gain, for the reward... because that defeats the purpose. Man places a Fact in what he does because he knows that what he does is for himself... re-read that last part. "Because he knows". Why does he know? Because from birth he has been told that knowing something undisputed and undeniable is fact. When in fact, this fact is a belief Why? Read on.

Where does Belief come into play? When religon comes along and says "Hey, nothing is perfect, except God". God is both a Belief and Fact at the same-time. It is stated that god is perfect. Perfection which is the status (The 'goal')most desired by the followers of the major Religions. Perfection is then defined as Fact to be Abolute, meaning without other ways of operation. It simply IS. To have something as simply being, and without 'evidence' and 'Scientific Reason' to give reason to why something is defined and believed in is a fatal flaw of both Science and Religion, and a cornerstone as to why Fact and Belief are both still seperated.

The rest of Sass's comments are for another discussion, but I think I have made the point I wanted. with the exception of an example for real-world comparison:

In the comic stip "Calvin and Hobbes", there is a strip where Calvin proclaims that Math is a belief, that you simply hold true that two numbers, when added together 'magically just become a new number'. I laughed at this thought when I read it before, as Calvin then used that reasoning to exempt himself from doing the homework... but then I started to think seriously about what the six year old troublemaker said, and it rang true for the above theory: Some things which are so held-fast as a fact, may be infact (no pun intended) a belief or something you must have faith in.

Of course then one would argue "Well I can count to four on my fingers by adding two and two, so its OBVIOUSLY fact."

... So maybe we're completley wrong about both aspects, and maybe we need to redefine Fact and Belief...

... or maybe, just maybe (Dramatic pause here)

... Faith and Belief are two sides of the same coin.

Thank you, I obviously have flaws in logic in the above, but I was on a role, and now I need sleep, feel free to point out my mistakes, or even just reply back with your thoughts on my theory, if you'd like. Mainly, I just wanted to get a stab at something intellectual before I slept. I have little drive to make that thread now indicently, haha.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?