Imperefct God

[Greatest I am]

Therefore you have to be insane not to believe in god.

Not according to the intelligentsia.

Nor me. Yeah, Professor Salpolsky makes some compelling points.

Define fuckwit please.

Is that the Christians who honor a genocidal p**** of a god and follows his vile homophobic and misogynous ways?

It's a bit broader than that, but certainly they could be included.

Good enough.

Regards
DL

[attofishpi]

An imaginary realm that only really stupid people will believe is real.

Precisely, you brought the term "SUPERNATURAL" in relation to God, so define it AND define GOD as this thing "SUPERNATURAL"

The rest of your poor post is not intelligible.

Y are you not intelligent?

I can use a dictionary while you are too stupid to do so.

Regards
DL

LMFAO.

So by that logic I am not stupid most of the time.

Use that dictionary to comprehend when to use THEIR, THERE and THEY'RE...once you master that as per your previous fuckups, you might elevate from mere doopid to the level of stupid.

[Belinda]

To scientifically interpret any human creation you need to know the creator's motives.

Secular scientists would be astonished to hear you say this.

However, I would agree: you need to know the Creator to understand the Creation fully...particular its moral and teleological dimensions. However, secular scientists would be appalled at your suggestion. They would insist all one needs is an empirical test.

True, some of The Bible can be read as poetry.

Yes. It has several literary modes: wisdom literature, poetry, epistle, prophecy...and each book has to be understood in light of its intention. But this has never presented any sort of difficulty to any serious exegete.

Biblical testimony purports to be about truths. However The Bible also contains unwitting testimony about its authors, editors, and the cultures of belief they inhabited.

Those are two different issues. To say that a text has cultural elements is a claim about form; to say it has truth-value is about content. And while these two have some interchange, they are also importantly distinct.

One can couch something factually true in cultural language without doing it any violence. One example from Western culture would be the phrase "the four corners of the Earth." In literal terms, we might cavil that the earth is a globe, and so has no "corners." But anybody with even a modicum of cultural wit realizes that the old idiom refers to north, south, east and west, and so does not suggest that 17th Century Western mariners thought they were going to fall off the edge of the world. So we have to read sensibly, intelligently, in a well-informed way. By contrast, there is a kind of cynicism that is itself entirely naive.

A sensible reader can make sense of cultural expressions. A naive reader cannot, perhaps, but that's a fault of the reader, not of the text.

"Secular scientists" well know how to eliminate subjective interpretations, except in the case of quantum uncertainty . In the latter case scientists specify and deal with subjective uncertainty. The scientific aspect of historiography is interesting in this respect as it is well known among historiographers that interpretations of scientific historical data may be 'right wing' or 'left wing'.

I agree that the variety of literary genres in The Bible is not a problem. It becomes a problem when the faithful treat the entire Bible as history. I sometimes wonder if preachers should regard it as a duty to divine Truth to preach to the faithful a doctrine of uncertainty.
I agree form criticism is not the same as interpreting meanings. It would be interesting to have a discussion here about the interchange; perhaps this has been done already?

Regarding metaphors, these are culture specific. "The four corners of the Earth" is common to modern native English speakers. Biblical metaphors are not the same metaphors as modern English metaphors. This is one reason Biblical interpretation is not for the under-informed---who are most people, as interpretation of ancient metaphors requires a lot of learning for which most people lack time or inclination.

It's unfair to blame the ordinary uninformed reader if he misunderstands Biblical metaphors. This is a study for experts who devote their lives to the study of Biblical meanings. In this regard, what the author intended and what The Bible can mean for the modern reader are not necessarily the same and in interesting cases are very different. Two cases in particular .

One is the case of what 'virgin' means for the author and'or translator as compared with what 'virgin' means to the modern English speaker(same for any modern language).

There is also the case of the phrase "Son of God". The phrase "son of" or "daughter of" is an ancient metaphor which is now not much used. However it is in some old or traditional contexts a metaphor and not a claim of biological parentage.

[Immanuel Can]

"Secular scientists" well know how to eliminate subjective interpretations,

Heh. All "interpretations" are subjective. And the observer cannot be "eliminated" from the observation. But the hard, unyielding facts are what science aims to reflect, even though it can never be other than a reflection of those facts, and not the original. Scientific epistemology is a big subject, but that's it, in a nutshell.

But let that be. More importantly for the moment, secular science has nothing at all to offer on subjects like morality and teleology. They aren't even areas on which secular science has any qualification to speak. There's no "science" of moralty, no "science" of teleology. Secular science can posit explanations of how we came to believe in such things: but by doing that, they are implying that both are mere fictions, mere social constructs. So what secular science can never do is provide any legitimacy for believing in morality or teleology. Describing an "origin" to insist on a legitimacy is an example of what is called "the genetic fallacy." All secularists can suppose is that morality or teleology are imaginary. And as such, they can never be required.

What they would utterly reject is your suggestion that they cannot do their work unless they know the intentions of the Creator. They would say that they can do it without that. If they don't say that, they're not "secular."

I agree that the variety of literary genres in The Bible is not a problem. It becomes a problem when the faithful treat the entire Bible as history.

I have never met even one Christian who thinks poetry is history, or impending prophecy is history, or can't recognize what an epistle is. That's a total straw man. What you might rather mean is that you want those parts of Scripture that are history not to be history. And yes, that's where you'll get into disagreement with them.

...interpretation of ancient metaphors requires a lot of learning for which most people lack time or inclination.

It's not nearly so difficult as that. The metaphors themselves can be understood with just a little cultural knowledge. It's their implications and applications that are more challenging. And that many people "lack time or inclination" for that is not a knock on Scripture. It just means people are sometimes lazy.

It's unfair to blame the ordinary uninformed reader if he misunderstands Biblical metaphors.

No, it's not. They're actually quite easy to unpack. The Bible is astonishingly plain-speaking...especially if you compare it to the esoteric works of other religions. The Bible is easy even for the uneducated to grasp at a basic level. But it's deep enough to have occupied some of the world's best scholars for millennia. It's not getting into it that's hard; it's exhausting its rmeaning that is impossible.

One is the case of what 'virgin' means for the author and'or translator as compared with what 'virgin' means to the modern English speaker(same for any modern language).

It means the same thing: a young woman who has not had sexual congress with a man.

There is also the case of the phrase "Son of God".

This has both literal and metaphorical dimensions. But that's hardly surprising, because many English words have both literal and metaphorical dimensions. But the context generally makes it abundantly clear which is in view. And sometimes, BOTH are simultaneously implied.

It's not at all so hard as you suppose. The truth is rather more simple: that, as you say, people "lack time and inclination" to care, and would rather invent pretexts simply to dismiss the Bible without knowing it al all, rather than to face the truth it presents.

But again, whose fault is that?

[Lacewing]

Nice post, Belinda!

I sometimes wonder if preachers should regard it as a duty to divine Truth to preach to the faithful a doctrine of uncertainty.

Yes! Wouldn't that be refreshing?! Rather than preaching absolute and specific interpretations to people, acknowledge the variations and unknowns... and say "Let's explore and consider this together, and you can determine how it is meaningful to you."

After all, why not practice each person's personal connection with their own god, and the meaningfulness and reward they get from it, rather than telling them how everything is and should be? True spirituality should guard against controlling influences. Why would any spiritual being need spirituality spoon fed to them? They can divine it for themselves if they're offered inspiration and tools and potential.

what the author intended and what The Bible can mean for the modern reader are not necessarily the same and in interesting cases are very different.

Yes.

Acknowledging and exploring various interpretations would inspire people to be open rather than closed... continually observing and considering and expanding, rather than locking everything down into the density and small distorted (and non-evolving) agendas and mindsets of man or any specific group.

[Belinda]

Immanuel Can wrote:

What you might rather mean is that you want those parts of Scripture that are history not to be history. And yes, that's where you'll get into disagreement with them.

I am surprised you don't know that ancient and medieval notions of what comprises 'history' is not the same as post Renaissance, post Enlightement notions of what 'history' is. The nature of history underwent further revisions in the 1950s and later.

[Belinda]

Nice post, Belinda!

I sometimes wonder if preachers should regard it as a duty to divine Truth to preach to the faithful a doctrine of uncertainty.

Yes! Wouldn't that be refreshing?! Rather than preaching absolute and specific interpretations to people, acknowledge the variations and unknowns... and say "Let's explore and consider this together, and you can determine how it is meaningful to you."

After all, why not practice each person's personal connection with their own god, and the meaningfulness and reward they get from it, rather than telling them how everything is and should be? True spirituality should guard against controlling influences. Why would any spiritual being need spirituality spoon fed to them? They can divine it for themselves if they're offered inspiration and tools and potential.

what the author intended and what The Bible can mean for the modern reader are not necessarily the same and in interesting cases are very different.

Yes.

Acknowledging and exploring various interpretations would inspire people to be open rather than closed... continually observing and considering and expanding, rather than locking everything down into the density and small distorted (and non-evolving) agendas and mindsets of man or any specific group.

if I may sum up I'd say Immanuel Can is authoritarian, and you and I Lacewing are liberal.

[henry quirk]

if I may sum up I'd say Immanuel Can is authoritarian, and you and I Lacewing are liberal.

That's ass-backwards.

You're the authoritarian; Mannie is classically liberal.

[Immanuel Can]

if I may sum up I'd say Immanuel Can is authoritarian, and you and I Lacewing are liberal.

That's SOOOO funny!

I'm the guy who wants everybody to understand everybody else's argument, so as to have the free will to choose what they believe...and I'M the "authoritarian."

Awesome, B.

[Lacewing]

if I may sum up I'd say Immanuel Can is authoritarian, and you and I Lacewing are liberal.

You are gentle in your assessment, Belinda. I'm more inclined to say Immanuel Can is a rabid distortionist in service to his ego... which greatly dilutes the value from his knowledge. My only wonder about him is whether or not he is aware of such within himself, and the transparency of it that many people here have commented on, or whether his ego-devotion is so strong that he does not see or care. It's hard to imagine an intelligent or aware person continually doubling-down to preserve such an authoritative stance, as he does. It seems very dark.

You, Belinda -- in contrast -- model the reflections of a genuinely thoughtful, exploring soul who focuses on clarity rather than ego. Very refreshing and light!

[gaffo]

Mr Cant, you are a good man and thanks for reply - sadly i simply cannot fix your prejudice WRT to Atheism -and you have it sadly.


your post below as concise - made me more clearing understand -per "atheism" you and i have are on other universes - and will not in the future defend my unfaith with one that does not understand it - per me/myself and that unfaith.

there is always fate int eh future (I've never cared for "bash God for i an an athies) - i am due to lack of empiricsicm, not emotion. in fact i hope i'm wrong.

but you seem to not be like me in regard to Athiiesm - as a Beliver you seem to bash atheists in all instance.

---------ok thats your right and prejudice.i thnk you are wrong to do so - but ok/fine

you never bashed me nor my Atheism - so i thank you for than, it shows you have character - even if prejudiced (and no this does not make me an uncle tom - though persons like vegs would say so - on the character scale she is around 2 and w are around 8 - so let her call me an uncle tom for all i care - not (if veg were an 8 or 9 and made the accusation - then i'd have to do some serous self reflection!). but she's not...so best ignored utterly.

It's Nietzsche, not me, who points out that it means things like: no objective morality, no objective truth, no actual meaning in life, everything becomes just a play for power, and there are no compass points anymore by which an Atheist can navigate from reality to value.

All that is true. And he said it. So I give him credit.

you ay its not you but Nick - then you agree with Nick - so it is IN FACT YOU ALSO that shares his view on Atheism!!!!!!!

which of course is utterly wrong.

a an aside - Atheist should be terrifid? why so?

Because of the consequences Nietzsche laid out so honestly.

"Honestly" - that requires Character (and i know one cannot fully know the character of another - even via written works which might be self promoting) - you know Nick - i don't.

Was Nick an Honest Ape? if so can you show an example of?

If one is an Atheist, one can only go on believing in morality, meaning, purpose, justice, truth and hope beyond the grave if one is willing to lie to oneself.

you seem to equate all those tings, i do not.

1. Morality is Justice - so no need to repeat yourself
2. same with meaning and purpose
3. Truth is irrelevent since my nature is too low to ever know it (an ant on the sidwalk - not seeing the sidewalk, nor the sadewalks maker)
4. Hope is eternal for all folks be they Atheists nor Believers - a afirm Hope as a near Virtue.


I value 1 the most - teh 4 a far far distant second and 2, and 3 is of no value to me, knowing i cannot find it in this life..................will amend a little i can find 2 as more apt, helping one in need etc........i find 3 as hubris, and not worth my time to "find". - in this life- if in the next, and if there is a next, i am not an ant but more wise by nature than i am as a man in this life - well GREAT!!!!!!!!!!!! - i await the next life - if there ione, and in it i'm not born an ant like i was this time..............

Atheism means there's no basis for such beliefs anymore. So, if anyone actually believed Atheism in such a way as to try to live consistently with what it implies, he would have to become quite a Nihilist and sociopath.

well clearly - Atheism is a denail of God (for me via empiriscim - other via motions).

Atheism is not a doctrine of conduct! - its just a dnial of The God/God.

nothing mroe.

so ya there are equal measure of Christian Assholes as Atheistic oness



and Buddist (Pol Pot anyone?) and Muslim........etc............back 100,000 yrs 9and a trillion tribalg ods at least. - same perecetage of assholes as today relion is irrelivent (or lack of).

I'm thankful that most Atheists I've met are better than their creed warrants them in being.

Atheists don't have a creed - you are now staring to pis me off..............

They continue to believe in morality and meaning and so on, even though it makes no sense when they pair it with their Atheism. I'd rather them be inconsistent, or even be hypocrites, than be sociopaths. That wouldn't be good for anyone.

it makes sense because Athiesm has no creed, and Character no religion!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

do you not see this??????????????????

A'm i wasting my time with you per the fundamentals?

You think so?

Well, let's prove that. At least, let's show it rationally.

What is it, in specific, about evolution that morally compels "goodness" in man?

survival as a social animal, otheriwse he would ahv sold out his neighbor and himself and the man line would be xtinct today.

I think that's very obviously not the case. People don't need to be good in order to survive. In fact, being good often works against their chances of survival, as individuals. No, what works best, from an evolutionary perspective, is if I convince OTHERS to behave morally, perhaps, but I allow myself the freedom of being either moral or immoral whenever I like. Then, I have all my options open. I can take advantage of all situations, and thus promote my personal survival (and the survival of my genes, pace Dawkins).

So no, I would not go extinct if I behave immorally. Not at all. But I might get the upper hand if I were to behave amorally. So that would make a good case for me being amoral...like Nietzsche.

??? maybe your understanding of evolution is diff than mine. Welcome talking our view of evol over - but not big into it - might be of value to see if we are on the ame page/understanding of - or not - your call on this.

Now, Atheists can (and often do) make up a phony morality, or even more often, keep thoughtlessly following the morality of the crowd they're in:

yes you caught me - good work - I'm a phony just act morally due to pier pressure of my neighbors (all beleivers of course) - otherwise i'd just be a raving amoral animal if give full raign as an atheist.

but Atheism itself, if true, does not give any grounds for anybody to believe in morality.

and? its irrelivant, and BTW I can't prove tere is no god emirically either - so there is not way to Prove any Reiligon - or my Athiestis.

Atheism is a denial of the existiance of your God - nothing more - not a negation of morality!!!!!!!!!!
remove your prejudice!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Nietzsche again.

i no longer care - use him to desparage Athiests all you like fopr your ego - i know noting about the man nor care to.

ok he brilliant about what Athists are - being one, like me - so he has defined me and confermed your prejudice - so now i have no morality and there is no need to converse with me since Nick knows me better than i do.

Pol Pot killed a million the good Buddist he was.

Well, Buddhists may say it had nothing to do with his Buddhism. I don't insist on that.

why don't you have a say? Tochamada(sp) - killined thousand sin the inquasition - being a Chrsitian.

But I think it was much more a product of his Communism.

its not Pol Pot was born upper middle class and went to college in France, he was a Buddist second and communist far third and an opportunist First and foremost.

and a mass murderer first and foremost and in finality of history.

In no sense was Pol Pot a "believer" in anything I am encouraging.

never said he was - but he was a Beleiver (Buddist) - as Torachamada was a Christian.

both killed thousands/millions as Belevers - and me - i've not kill even one as a non believer!!!!!!!!!!! what am i doing wrong here?

i need to catch up!

[gaffo]

so the cross is all that matters

It matters very much.

... and gnostics were never christians,

Correct.

and christ message while on earth did not matter.

???
No, that's not true. And I sure can't imagine how you got that idea. What do you mean, "his message while on earth did not matter"? Which "message" are you speaking of?

I'm speaking of principle - if the cross is all that matter (I mentioned thin in another post BTW) - just nail Stalin to the post and you have your Mesiah - not need to know of the message of the one on the cross - just put Him othe corss and be done with it!!!!!!!!

thus in alternate histroy - Stalin becomes Christ. not for what he said or did (and we know he did a lot - like mass murder etc.....) - but if He did good - like you know the other guy, while living - i.e. good instead of bad works - works don't matter - since all that matter is the Cross.

so nail Stalin on the cross and you have and him die for you via the atonement.

[gaffo]

Your ongoing personal rant against Atheism as if it were a foe, personified with characteristics, is absurd.

Agreed - he is pejudiced for sure - not just becasue he is a Chrsitan (i have 3 best friend who are and have no prej against me) - i suspect it is more personal for IC - i wonder what its all about though.

I have Christian friends, also, and none of them talk the way I.C. does. He is reflecting his own personal stuff, which I don't think represents the best of Christianity. I think it is more in service to his ego.

I dont know is stoy so wil lnot surmise is motives here - agreed there must be a personal reason for is prejudice, and i really would like him to tell us of it - i do like ICas a person.

My Christian friends are evolving and broadening their understandings. They see the good naturally accessible in all people, regardless of beliefs. I think that's beautiful and honest. They are more about love than fear. It's very inspiring and encouraging to see. Hopefully such a wave will continue to build and roll through theism.

It seems more honest and realistic to be able to recognize and acknowledge the good and bad throughout all. Clarity and connection comes when we let go of extreme notions and self-serving stories. There are more viewing platforms above the noise.

agree 104+ percent!

and Amen!

[Immanuel Can]

sadly i simply cannot fix your prejudice WRT to Atheism

I have none. I know exactly what Atheism is (it's not exactly a hard concept). I just think it's mistaken.

as a Beliver you seem to bash atheists in all instance.

Actually, you'll note I've said nothing negative about "Atheists," as people. I criticize "Atheism," the belief.

You never bashed me nor my Atheism

You're right: I've never bashed you. I do bash Atheism.

Should I claim you're "prejudiced" if you say anything critical of Theism? If not, then why would you accuse me of doing anything wrong by criticizing Atheism?

It's Nietzsche, not me, who points out that it means things like: no objective morality, no objective truth, no actual meaning in life, everything becomes just a play for power, and there are no compass points anymore by which an Atheist can navigate from reality to value.

All that is true. And he said it. So I give him credit.

you say its not you but Nick - then you agree with Nick - so it is IN FACT YOU ALSO that shares his view on Atheism!!!!!!!

"Nick"? You mean "Nietzsche," I assume?

I do.

He says Atheism is amoral. I say he's right about that. We agree.

If one is an Atheist, one can only go on believing in morality, meaning, purpose, justice, truth and hope beyond the grave if one is willing to lie to oneself.

you seem to equate all those tings, i do not.

I don't "equate" them. I see each as different. I just point out that none of them is defensible by way of Atheism.

Atheism is not a doctrine of conduct! - its just a dnial of The God/God.

nothing mroe.

That's right. It doesn't tell you to be moral. It doesn't tell you to be immoral. Rather, it means that "moral" is a meaningless term.

So it's "amoral." That is precisely the right term for it.

I'm thankful that most Atheists I've met are better than their creed warrants them in being.

Atheists don't have a creed - you are now staring to pis me off.............

Yeah, they do.

They have a one-precept creeed: "No gods." But that has implications.

survival as a social animal, otheriwse he would ahv sold out his neighbor and himself and the man line would be xtinct today.

I think that's very obviously not the case. People don't need to be good in order to survive. In fact, being good often works against their chances of survival, as individuals. No, what works best, from an evolutionary perspective, is if I convince OTHERS to behave morally, perhaps, but I allow myself the freedom of being either moral or immoral whenever I like. Then, I have all my options open. I can take advantage of all situations, and thus promote my personal survival (and the survival of my genes, pace Dawkins).

So no, I would not go extinct if I behave immorally. Not at all. But I might get the upper hand if I were to behave amorally. So that would make a good case for me being amoral...like Nietzsche.

??? maybe your understanding of evolution is diff than mine.

No, it's likely the same. I suspect that the main difference is, perhaps, that nobody has ever challenged you to think about what Evolutionism implies.

Now, Atheists can (and often do) make up a phony morality, or even more often, keep thoughtlessly following the morality of the crowd they're in:

yes you caught me - good work - I'm a phony just act morally due to pier pressure of my neighbors (all beleivers of course) - otherwise i'd just be a raving amoral animal if give full raign as an atheist.

Well, any consistent Atheist should choose to be amoral. Not necessarily "immoral," but "amoral." That is, he should have no regard for the moral status of any action either way.

But as I said, I'm glad most Atheists are inconsistent.

Atheism is a denial of the existiance of your God - nothing more - not a negation of morality!!!!!!!!!!

It's both. Because if there is no God, there is no authority for anyone to say what "morality" should be, and no legitimative reality to any "morality" anybody invents.

Nietzsche again.

i no longer care - use him to desparage Athiests all you like fopr your ego - i know noting about the man nor care to.

Well, he's probably the best-known Atheist of all time, so he's a good one to use.

so now i have no morality and there is no need to converse with me since Nick knows me better than i do.

I didn't say you have no morality. Maybe you do. But for sure, you didn't get any by way of your Atheism. And I will give Nietzsche this: he's more rationally consistent in his Atheism than somebody who still clings to morality after Atheism has destroyed it.

Tochamada(sp) - killined thousand sin the inquasition - being a Chrsitian.

Well, he was a Catholic Inquisitor, actually. But he has nothing to do with Christ, or with me.

Christ killed nobody, and declared, "Love your enemies, and do good to those who use you spitefully." If you think Torquemada got his inspiration from that, you're going to have to explain how.

[Immanuel Can]

if the cross is all that matter (I mentioned thin in another post BTW) - just nail Stalin to the post and you have your Mesiah - not need to know of the message of the one on the cross - just put Him othe corss and be done with it!!!!!!!!

I have to admit I have no idea at all what your argument is supposed to be here. It makes not a lick of sense to me.