Jesus is...

[Bu]

Some informative and excellent posts here, guys.   

I still voted for Dave, though.   0:)   

[karlhenning]

All the same, Dave won't help get your chicken back.

(Just saying.)

[Dr. Dread]

Atheists are very fond of this, but only when it applies to Christians...

Lies...

[Bu]

All the same, Dave won't help get your chicken back.

(Just saying.)

The god that failed............................or maybe the god that stole my chicken?   


Oh well, looks like the big guy to the left will just have to settle for some pork instead.

[Dr. Dread]

The god that failed............................or maybe the god that stole my chicken?   


Oh well, looks like the big guy to the left will just have to settle for some pork instead.

You have good taste in demi-gods.  0:)

[Joe Barron]

Of course what he means is, "What my interpretation of the New Testament is that..."  The New Testament is not a book of systematic theology, unfortunately.  So there is no meaning in the words, "The New Testament teaches..."

The Jesus of the scriptures (the only one we know) certainly spoke about some form of damnation and fires of Gehenna and gnashing of teeth and no one coming to the father except through him, and theologians ---- major names --- have interpreted that to mean the existence of some form of eternal torture chamber. What makes them wrong and you right? Theologians have longed disagreed with one another. They've been sending one another to hell for centuries, and we on the outside have no way of judging between them. The only thing Christian theologians agree on is that, on some level, the scriptures are true, either literally or metaphorically (whatever that might mean). Beyond that, everything is up for grabs. Theologians select scriptural passages that support their positions and downplay the rest. It's an arbitrary practice, and this is Kaufmann's argument. If the scripture says something that theologians can't believe it says, they explain it away. As Kaufmann says, "Where the heretic says no, the theologian interprets."

If God is an an omnipotent being, you'd thnk he could at least bother to be clear. Why all the need for interpretation. Of course, the Old Testament is very clear, but no civilized person today would stone adulterers.

Science at least has a method that can be used and results that can be replicated, and if evidence is complete and interpretations differ, we can await the arrival of new ideas, new theories, new facts, and revised assumptions. Theology cannot admit of new facts, since scriptures do not change. We can only argue that our new interpretations are more enlightened. Problem is, there is no scruiptural basis for that enlightnement. It must come from outside.

I also take issue with the "everybody has assumptions" argument, as though all assumptions interchangeable and all equally valid. If we take this position to its logical conclusion, truth becomes largely a matter of taste. I don't think you, who want to discover the "truth" of God, would maintain that it is, yet that is the inevitable endpoint: anything goes, and we might as well believe one thing as another. Which is weird: you're using a kind of epistemological relativism to enforce a moral absolutism. We can't even know whether God exists, but somehow we can know how he wants us to live. What heaven on earth would be like. That porn is bad. That gays are anathema.

Fortunately, outside of religion, no one really thinks this way. You may think science relies on unprovable assumptions about reality, but I dare you to stick your finger in a light socket.

You're right, though. This is kind of fun.

[karlhenning]

The Jesus of the scriptures (the only one we know) certainly spoke about some form of damnation and fires of Gehenna and gnashing of teeth and no one coming to the father except through him, and theologians ---- major names --- have interpreted that to mean the existence of some form of eternal torture chamber. What makes them wrong and you right?

I dunno: what is it makes cartoonish simplifications wrong?

[Joe Barron]

I dunno: what is it makes cartoonish simplifications wrong?

Thomas Aquinas wrote cartoonish simplifications?

[Dr. Dread]

Two votes for me. I better get a p.o. box.  0:)

[Joe Barron]

Two votes for me. I better get a p.o. box.  0:)

I figure at least with you, I have a better chance of talking my way out of any trouble. 0:)

[Dr. Dread]

I figure at least with you, I have a better chance of talking my way out of any trouble. 0:)

I'm very reasonable, at reasonable prices. 

[karlhenning]

Thomas Aquinas wrote cartoonish simplifications?

. . . have interpreted that to mean the existence of some form of eternal torture chamber.

"Eternal torture chamber" is a cartoonish simplification, isn't it, Joe?

Your Thomas Aquinas question was cartoonish, wasn't it, Joe?

You're enjoying the act of mockery too well to shake hands, aren't you, Joe?

That's an unworthy form of recreation, isn't it, Joe?  Sets friendships at risk, and all that.  Ernie is not all that distant a neighbor, but he doesn't care about offending people he's met.  He's the ridicule is necessary guy.

Ridiculing religion, Joe, is not at all the same as "disproving" it.

Is it?

[Elgarian]

Two votes for me. I better get a p.o. box.  0:)

Until we know more, I strongly advise that you stick to the edges of lakes, rather than trying to walk across them, Dave.

[Bulldog]

Giving Jesus the benefit of the doubt, I voted "Swell Guy".  I'd invite him over for dessert, but not a full meal.  The meal is reserved for MN Dave who would likely be more fun, maybe even amenable to a food fight.  I just can't imagine Jesus starting a food fight.

[Dr. Dread]

Until we know more, I strongly advise that you stick to the edges of lakes, rather than trying to walk across them, Dave.

Sink or swim. Or...sink not.

[Dr. Dread]

Giving Jesus the benefit of the doubt, I voted "Swell Guy".  I'd invite him over for dessert, but not a full meal.  The meal is reserved for MN Dave who would likely be more fun, maybe even amenable to a food fight.  I just can't imagine Jesus starting a food fight.

And it's not fair because he can work miracles thereby having more food to toss about.

[Bulldog]

And it's not fair because he can work miracles thereby having more food to toss about.

That would make Jesus a tosser.

[Joe Barron]

"Eternal torture chamber" is a cartoonish simplification, isn't it, Joe?
Your Thomas Aquinas question was cartoonish, wasn't it, Joe?

Sorry, but I don't think so. Hell is hell. It is eternal. It is suffering. When I was a kid, it was pictures of people writhing in fire. This was the official Baltimore Catechism version, sanctioned by the Church. I did not make it up. The nature of the pain was limited only by one's own imagination. The sermon in "A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man" was surely no simplification: it was a well-thought out, sadistic elaboration. Priests said this kind of stuff.

To be fair, though, we were also exposed to the idea that hell consists in separation from God. The way is was described to me is, you see God at the moment of judgment, you understand how wonderful the sight is, and then you are derpived of it, which is enough to make you regret your sins and atheistic denials for all eternity. The point is, no one ever denied hell existed. They just reinterepreted it. 

In Ives's view of things, the call of the mountains, the view of the firmament, followed the argument. Think of this thread as the second movement of the string quartet. But I certainly don't want to put our friendship at risk, so I'll stop here.

[Catison]

If God is an an omnipotent being, you'd thnk he could at least bother to be clear. Why all the need for interpretation. Of course, the Old Testament is very clear, but no civilized person today would stone adulterers.

The trouble is, He wasn't clear.  Fine.  But that doesn't disprove his omnipotence.  And you're right about stoning adulterers, but there is a theological answer for that.

Science at least has a method that can be used and results that can be replicated, and if evidence is complete and interpretations differ, we can await the arrival of new ideas, new theories, new facts, and revised assumptions. Theology cannot admit of new facts, since scriptures do not change. We can only argue that our new interpretations are more enlightened. Problem is, there is no scruiptural basis for that enlightnement. It must come from outside.

This bothered me too when I was an atheist.  So many theologians and they can't all be right?  This is a point for which Catholics differ from Protestants, but this isn't a problem for Catholics, because the Church, guided by the holy spirit, is the final interpreter of scripture.  If a theologian disagrees with the Church, then he or she doesn't have the right interpretation, period.  Of course, you can't prove that the Church is right, that is a matter of faith, but I don't think it is open to this criticism.  In fact, it was a reason I became Catholic.

I also take issue with the "everybody has assumptions" argument, as though all assumptions interchangeable and all equally valid. If we take this position to its logical conclusion, truth becomes largely a matter of taste. I don't think you, who want to discover the "truth" of God, would maintain that it is, yet that is the inevitable endpoint: anything goes, and we might as well believe one thing as another. Which is weird: you're using a kind of epistemological relativism to enforce a moral absolutism. We can't even know whether God exists, but somehow we can know how he wants us to live. What heaven on earth would be like. That porn is bad. That gays are anathema.

Sorry, I wasn't very clear about this.  From a philosophical perspective, everyone must make assumptions.  Whether the assumptions are right or not is another issues.  The point is that atheists can't act like they aren't making any assumptions about the world, that they are the only ones not making metaphysical statements and hence those that do are somehow "worthless", as you quoted.

From a purely scientific and philosophical standpoint, there is no such thing as objective Truth, as you show in your post above.  We are all making assumptions and no one has an objective way to test their correlation with actual reality.  The implications of supposing such a Truthless reality is that there is no such thing as right or wrong anymore, no such thing as morals, and no foundation for concepts such as love.  You can have it that way, fine, but you must also accept that when you say something like, "murder is wrong" or "matter is made of atoms", you are in fact saying nothing at all.  In other words, there is no meaning behind any statement anymore.

You could, as a further assumption, propose objective Truth exists, but that is edging toward Deism.  Afterall, from where does this objectiveness come from?

BTW, you are not right about gays being anathema.

Fortunately, outside of religion, no one really thinks this way. You may think science relies on unprovable assumptions about reality, but I dare you to stick your finger in a light socket.

That is quite a misunderstanding.  I am not arguing that if I stick a finger in a socket I won't be electrocuted, I am arguing that without the needed assumptions the idea of electrocution being about electrons flowing through my finger is meaningless.  And if you want to use ideas like that to tell me I am believing in something without evidence, I have to laugh.

You're right, though. This is kind of fun.

I'm glad your head is getting number. 

[Joe Barron]

  And you're right about stoning adulterers, but there is a theological answer for that.

Exactly.

OK, now I'll stop.