Does God exist? Part 2 (1 Viewer)

[Masaken]

He is but I watched his lectures on the Old Testament a while back and he knows his stuff. I'm not too into my Jordan Peterson nowadays. I had my Peterson phase a few years ago.

he's had a few insane takes, i've seen a few clips

 

[HazzRat]

I’m not denying that many christians oppose homosexuality, however just like genesis is strictly mentioned in the bible, and the birth of Jesus is strictly mentioned in the bible, I was pointing out that being mentioned in that way does not necessarily mean that it is actually literal. And I’m not just coming up with this, this is an opinion I got from a leading theologian, so take of that what you will - obviously the bible can be interpreted differently but I would argue if one considers other parts of the bible to not be literal and be based on the contexts of the time, it’s not a stretch to say the same about the views of homosexuality in the bible. I agree that it is very harmful, and I just see it as an example of the cognitive dissonance some Christians possess. Fortunately, this isn’t the case for all christians anymore (e.g the uniting church or even my local catholic priest)

I don’t really thinks it’s worth arguing specifically on the existence of god because as has been mentioned in this thread, trying to bring logic and reason into a discussion about Christianity goes against the idea of Christianity. And as much as Christianity may seem absurd to us, it does genuinely help lots of people, so in my opinion it’s a fruitless debate to have.

Otherwise good debate but I have a few points to make. I do agree that arguing the existence of God is a complete non-starter for all religious adherents. That is why Richard Dawkins calls it a 'mind disease' as you're stuck with it, purely due to its monopoly over logic in the minds of adherents.

Numerous times the Bible has stepped down to the context of the time - in which I ask again - what is it for? If I wanted a Bronze Age manifesto on morality, I would explore a range of academic sources on the contemporary philosophy of Bronze Age society. Likewise, if I wanted to get a grasp of how I should act in the year 2023, no way would I read the Bible. I would explore the millennia of human philosophy and make an educated decision. If the Bible claims that homosexuals were born in sin, bugger it. It's teachings are no where near universal. If slavery is condoned, if homosexuality is punished, and if Jewish people to blame for the murder of Jesus, then you have to bend your interpretations further and further each year to justify the contemporary understanding on morality.

In my humble opinion, the Bible is a great work of Bronze Age philosophy. But it is flawed. And so many of its teachings don't apply today as our society has twisted so many of 'God's' words to fit the modern day. Wouldn't it just be intuitive to assume that when one of the Bible's many authors says 'If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years', they mean it. You shouldn't need a theologian to interpret that for you because after all, this is the manuscript of morality. If any of these sacred texts can be interpreted in the complete wrong direction, then why were they written like that and why do they exist?

It would be just as easy for the Bible to say 'all homosexuals are accepted by the faith'. Unfortunately, the Bible doesn't.

 

[HazzRat]

he's had a few insane takes, i've seen a few clips

Yes, there's a reason I've surpassed my Jordan Peterson phase. Now I see a lot of my peers getting into Jordan Peterson because of the Ontario clinical psychology incident and I am trying my best to steer them away. And this is coming from someone who has read his two flagship books: 12 rules for life and Beyond Order: 12 more rules for life. Most of what he says we know anyway like 'clean your room'. Right - I'd hope most Westerners know that. Anyway, he's still not as bad as Andrew Tate. Though, idk whether that would really mean much.

 

[carrotsss]

You shouldn't need a theologian to interpret that for you because after all, this is the manuscript of morality. If any of these sacred texts can be interpreted in the complete wrong direction, then why were they written like that and why do they exist?

Why do fiction books exist? Just because the bible says something doesn't mean it has to literally mean that thing, and doesn’t mean the (human) people who wrote it weren’t influenced by their contexts. The bible, like any other book, shouldn’t be taken completely at face value and should instead be analysed for true meaning and what actually applies. And at the end of the day, the Bible’s main message to love one another is pretty indisputably a good message, even if there are other harmful or flawed messages hidden in its metaphors or stories. And I don’t have to believe in god to say that

 

[ExtremelyBoredUser]

Yo to all the pastors out there, just have a question, if u take an offering to god like money or food unconsciously, like u dont even know it, like ur dumbass just rocked up and took some shit and dipped. Is that the Almighty's mercy on us and him looking out on the wellbeing of his children? A sign from God to indulge in his pleasures? Or am I going to hell?

 

[Vall]

+1 to everyone for making this the first actually civilised conversation about religion I've seen online

 

[ExtremelyBoredUser]

+1 to everyone for making this the first actually civilised conversation about religion I've seen online

This is what happens when humans speak instead of evangelists and fundamentalists

 

[ExtremelyBoredUser]

i think the belief of god should be at least something that someone feels personally. the 'better' christians (i say this with quotes, i hope yall know what i actually mean) believe in god out of something that's more personal and philosophical to them, not because it gives them this idea of moral superiority like those bible bashing righties that are out there

unrelated but u nailed what the saints thought when they spread the bhakti (bhakt literally means devotee) tradition in india lol before most the schools emphasised rituals or it was extremely philosophical like advaita. ofc this is all ideology, what happened in ground was determined mainly by the kings and elites but this is the ideology which most "hindus" nowadays follow. prior most ppl only followed one supreme god and venerated folk deities which are believed to originate from pre-vedic times.

i'm pre sure the buddhists don't worry about god or see him in a similar light at all and just focus on the noble path but it varies from tradition bc i saw tibetan buddhism and vajrayana in india and they had many theistic elements.

thought i could ontribute some of my knowledge.

 

[HazzRat]

100% agree on your points on homosexuality. the bible has been used and exploited by people - most of them christians. there's even a part in the bible where it seemingly condemns homosexuality, but this was translated into english by a group of protestant fundementalists (there's more history behind this but i have unfortunately forgotten)... and the original greek word was more akin to pedophile/molester (i find this all horrific, ironic and also very sad.) let's not forget the people who wrote the books in the bible aren't perfect like jesus was, they had their own misgivings and possibly their own agendas, and if we are to take the bible 100% seriously, then it feels like all those christians who point out the homosexuality verse overlook the most impactful and notable of the bible's teachings about being compassionate and kind, so...


i think the belief of god should be at least something that someone feels personally. the 'better' christians (i say this with quotes, i hope yall know what i actually mean) believe in god out of something that's more personal and philosophical to them, not because it gives them this idea of moral superiority like those bible bashing righties that are out there

Why do fiction books exist? Just because the bible says something doesn't mean it has to literally mean that thing, and doesn’t mean the (human) people who wrote it weren’t influenced by their contexts. The bible, like any other book, shouldn’t be taken completely at face value and should instead be analysed for true meaning and what actually applies. And at the end of the day, the Bible’s main message to love one another is pretty indisputably a good message, even if there are other harmful or flawed messages hidden in its metaphors or stories. And I don’t have to believe in god to say that

Earlier today I started writing a post to rebut some of these points however now I'll save that till a later date. For the time being, I will just learn some more about religion, its benefits and pitfalls, so I can craft a better argument next time. Not all religion is bad so I don't have to treat it as such.

 

[SylviaB]

i think the belief of god should be at least something that someone feels personally. the 'better' christians (i say this with quotes, i hope yall know what i actually mean) believe in god out of something that's more personal and philosophical to them, not because it gives them this idea of moral superiority like those bible bashing righties that are out there

why the fuck are you saying "y'all"

 

[ExtremelyBoredUser]

why not

This the last guy u wanna argue with

 

[nsw..wollongong]

While I don’t disagree with you, it’s worth keeping in mind that aside from crazy fundamentalists and those sorts, the general Christian consensus is that the stories in the bible were written long after Jesus death, and are not intended to be taken literally. For example, the story of Jesus’ birth isn’t meant to be taken literally. It draws parallels to similar stories made for the birth of other historical figures and kings which to paint their greatness. Same idea with Jesus’ miracles, the general consensus is that many of them didn’t literally happen, but they are ways to show Jesus love and the impact he had on people. Extrapolating this, the condemnation of homosexuality in the bible is also not necessarily strict opposition but actually reflecting the opposition to homosexuality which was prevalent at the time as a form of “evil”, but that’s a completely different argument that I won’t get into.

That said, I don’t believe in god personally, but I think you’re going the wrong way about disputing his existence.

wtaf how do u write like this then say ur bad at english

 

[synthesisFR]

the thing is like theres like 5942059829857694576092875693845763945876394587639045876903457869384759674598769837459687435976943576974598673945876934576908734598673904576937549867349576934759067934857698345769873459673450987x10^1734685725087608243976084752086
religions so thats what most people say cuz like which one is right is what ppl ask bc everyone obv just says "mine"

 

[dan964]

I’m assuming many of you are atheist/agnostic cause it’s 2023 and not many of us go to church anymore. However some of you may believe in a higher power so I just wondered what your stance is on God?

For me, there are a few major pitfalls that make religion a non-starter for me.

1) There is no proof. This is a relatively simple one. The only proof of God’s existence is found in a religious text or a church. If humanity was to turn back to the Stone Age, much of modern science would emerge again come a few thousand years. However completely different religions would form as none of the world’s religions would flow intuitively from the scientific method.

I agree with 011235 on a lot of his points. But thought to add my only response to some points..

Several reasons I disagree with this.
1. It really overestimates the power of the scientific methodology and proof in determining truth/reality. Science is certainly useful but it is important to recognise when it has it is limits in providing understanding of the world, it simply seems to provide an explanation but it isn't neutral.
There is a difference between logical/mathematical knowledge (laws), empirical knowledge (theories, in the scientific sense; and hypothesis) and personal knowledge (character) .

2. It disregards the impact that religion has had (and the complex relationship) in the development of modern science particular w.r.t ethics. It also disregards the negative impact that the Enlightenment and subsequent movements have had.

3. It is only recently in say the last 60 or so years that the remarkable claim has shifted from being that there is no God, to being that there is.

2) Circular reasoning. The Bible says that God exists so God exists because the Bible does. There is a reason every major religion thinks their God is divine but can not even comprehend the existence of another one.

Most arguments have to start with something axiomatic or set of assumptions. Even in science we bank on the previous theories been tried and tested.

For Christians, usually its an appeal to the character of Jesus and therefore the teachings of Christ about God presume the existence of God.
So therefore Christ's teachings being true must implicate the existence of a God, strictly a personal God. The self-identifying claim from Jesus is that he is from God. at the very least or is of God. Now that in of itself is not a remarkable claim, since many a religion have claimed such that their prophet is from God.
But the key assessment is the character of that person.

Actually Jesus himself appeals to the Old Testament Scriptures amongst other things to validate his credentials by claiming through his actions as such that he is the one promised in the Scriptures. This is such the study of theology. The key strength (and one of the things that convinces me) is the richest of the Biblical story spanning 1500 years period, 3 different continents and several languages yet overall uniform story and the richness of the connections combined with the compelling historical evidence for Christ.

4) Religious people tend to pick and chose their ethics anyway...

Putting aside you'll won't find someone who is 100% perfect or consistent in their ethics, religious or otherwise.
What you expressed, I take as a very broad oversimplification of ethics.

On the issue of the commandment not to murder - those who have read the Torah will understand that the 10 commandments are unpacked and a distinction is made between the taking of innocent life versus the justified killing as the due consequence of evil - hence why a lot of commandments in the Torah, the punishment was death. Even our courts recognise the distinction between murder vs manslaughter.

Sure all the major religions have similarities in morals - Christianity sees itself as an eschatological fulfilment of Judaism and Islam borrows heavily from Judaism in its morals (controversially so). I'm not sure too much on Hinduism and Buddhism although those two are related as such.

There are certain many blights on religious institutions which do not help their case (mind you most Protestants view the Catholic church as long gone for at least 500 years now) including sadly the abuse of children; and there are real steps made (in particular with Anglican & Presbyterian churches coming to mind), to make steps to take these issues to heart and seriously.

Neither the Civil War or WW1 was not a religious conflict, so not sure what the argument there is.

I don’t see why we can’t just see Jesus as a good Bronze Age thinker and not the divine son of literal God

Probably because (as the Christian like myself would take), to accept the words of Jesus you kind of have to deal with his self-identification about himself and you lose the impetus behind his moral teachings on righteousness because it is about God's standard.

 

[dan964]

While I don’t disagree with you, it’s worth keeping in mind that aside from crazy fundamentalists and those sorts, the general Christian consensus is that the stories in the bible were written long after Jesus death, and are not intended to be taken literally. For example, the story of Jesus’ birth isn’t meant to be taken literally. It draws parallels to similar stories made for the birth of other historical figures and kings which to paint their greatness. Same idea with Jesus’ miracles, the general consensus is that many of them didn’t literally happen, but they are ways to show Jesus love and the impact he had on people. Extrapolating this, the condemnation of homosexuality in the bible is also not necessarily strict opposition but actually reflecting the opposition to homosexuality which was prevalent at the time as a form of “evil”, but that’s a completely different argument that I won’t get into.

That said, I don’t believe in god personally, but I think you’re going the wrong way about disputing his existence.

Hi carrotsss, I might be in that "crazy fundamentalist" category based on your description. (The fundamentalist term is loaded and thrown around carelessly but that is a different problem)

But you'll find that generally Christian orthodoxy both historically and nowadays (or what you call consensus) is that the accounts of Jesus' life whilst recorded after Jesus' death & resurrection are testimony to the what happened in Jesus' life. It is orthodox Christian belief to believe in the incarnation of Jesus and the virgin birth, in fact there were creeds written to establish this long ago.

What you have espoused is a more liberal view which is not the consensus amongst believers and is more prevalent amongst non-Christians.

 

[dan964]

Also, homosexuality was not a good example. The condemnation of homosexuality in the Bible is indeed a strict opposition, not a half-hearted principle. Cue the infamous Leviticus 20:13, “If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads." This is from the Old Testament. And as Christians have taken a stance on the 'iffy-ness' of the Old Testament, I always bring up a New Testament quote to back it up. Romans 1:27, "Likewise, the men abandoned natural relations with women and burned with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error." In a utopian society, these anachronistic teachings would remain confined purely to scripture. However thousands of years on, they still possess a worrying effect on the modern day.

There is a whole thread on this topic TBH:

Same Sex Marriage Debate

Serious debate on same sex marriage. QUESTION : Should same sex marriage be legalised in Australia? If so, why? If it shouldn't, why not? and what effect would it have on Australia?

community.boredofstudies.org

Christian's should not be "iffy" on the Old Testament. Some history (biblically speaking) and theology:

The law given at Sinai from God was initially for the Jews/Israel under a covenant (agreement) made with God at the time of Moses; and was meant to keep them distinct from the nations around them. But the prophets then spoke of a new covenant needed basically because the Jews broke the initial covenant.

And Jesus in a way establishes a new covenant agreement (that can now include non-Jews not requiring circumcision etc). The new covenant was made not on ethnical distinctiveness but rather distinction through faith in Jesus. It is also something that was then opened up to non Jews as well, centred again around Christ (who functions as the new mediator, Moses-like figure). (Basically the entire book of Hebrews argues this whole)

So then the question remains do things like the 10 commandments and some of the moral teachings of the law still apply - well certain aspects of the law do (the punishments as such from the OT do not carry onto the NT as do the food laws as some examples).

In short, the oversimplified view is that all sex acts outside of heterosexual monogamous marriage is considered sinful which includes but is not limited to homosexual sex acts. It is based on a particular understanding of sex for marriage, and a particular view and vision for marriage as being complementary and for the bringing of children. (Mind you even sex acts in heterosexual monogamous marriage can be sinful as well in being self-centred for instance and its impossible for a Christian to have not sinned in this regard)

Things such as sexual attraction are a separate matter and generally most Christians won't argue that simply being attracted to the same or other sex is a moral issue as such.

 

[carrotsss]

Hi carrotsss, I might be in that "crazy fundamentalist" category based on your description. (The fundamentalist term is loaded and thrown around carelessly but that is a different problem)

But you'll find that generally Christian orthodoxy both historically and nowadays (or what you call consensus) is that the accounts of Jesus' life whilst recorded after Jesus' death & resurrection are testimony to the what happened in Jesus' life. It is orthodox Christian belief to believe in the incarnation of Jesus and the virgin birth, in fact there were creeds written to establish this long ago.

What you have espoused is a more liberal view which is not the consensus amongst believers and is more prevalent amongst non-Christians.

I’ve grown up in both Catholic and Uniting church communities, and this approach has been the consensus in every single church community I’ve been in. Catholicism remains the most common Christian denomination in Australia, and they have specifically denounced fundamentalism on multiple occasions (most recently Pope Francis referred to it as a ‘plague’). I will agree though that are definitely different levels of ‘fundamentalism’ by all Christians, and of course there are Christians who do believe in all of those things, however the so-called ‘liberal’ view is both becoming more much prevalent among Christian believers and to my knowledge is dominant in scholarly theological circles.

 

[dan964]

I’ve grown up in both Catholic and Uniting church communities, and this approach has been the consensus in every single church community I’ve been in. Catholicism remains the most common Christian denomination in Australia, and they have specifically denounced fundamentalism on multiple occasions (most recently Pope Francis referred to it as a ‘plague’). I will agree though that are definitely different levels of ‘fundamentalism’ by all Christians, and of course there are Christians who do believe in all of those things, however the so-called ‘liberal’ view is both becoming more much prevalent among Christian believers and to my knowledge is dominant in scholarly theological circles.

Uniting church is definitely theologically liberal - some would add compromising. In Catholicism, it varies widely - in terms of how much is held, nominalism is quite prevalent in the Catholic church (and mind you would add parts of the Anglican church).

I think fundamentalism is thrown around now like it is a dirty word so probably good to clarify that we probably mean different things by it. But historically that was not the case.

Not Fundamentalist, not Conservative, and not Liberal: The Fundamentals and the Mainstream of American Evangelicalism - Christian Scholar’s Review

Everyone knows that American Protestantism generally divided into fundamentalist and liberal camps in the 1920s. And many people know that fundamentalism derives from The Fundamentals, early-twentieth-century tracts that reduced the...

christianscholars.com

 

[SylviaB]

Uniting church is definitely theologically liberal - some would add compromising. In Catholicism, it varies widely - in terms of how much is held, nominalism is quite prevalent in the Catholic church (and mind you would add parts of the Anglican church).

I think fundamentalism is thrown around now like it is a dirty word so probably good to clarify that we probably mean different things by it. But historically that was not the case.

Not Fundamentalist, not Conservative, and not Liberal: The Fundamentals and the Mainstream of American Evangelicalism - Christian Scholar’s Review

Everyone knows that American Protestantism generally divided into fundamentalist and liberal camps in the 1920s. And many people know that fundamentalism derives from The Fundamentals, early-twentieth-century tracts that reduced the...

christianscholars.com

 

[synthesisFR]

Can we revive this thread I’m participating interested with the branching of Abrahamic faiths