quote:

So God did not demand this sacrifice, Jephthah vowed to give it to him

So basically, you're saying that God didn't ask for a sacrifice, but he accepted it. Even better.

quote:

But, so my reading has led me to beleive, the teachings of the New Testament forbid human sacrifice as repugnant to god. If we are addressing the same god, why did he demand human sacrifice in this way?

This case you gave me wasn't as much a command from God as it was a vow correct? Also, as I have said not all stories in the bible are even labeled by the bible as "Good" particularly the chronological portions of the bible (Judges a prime example).

30 And Jephthah made a vow to the LORD : "If you give the Ammonites into my hands, 31 whatever comes out of the door of my house to meet me when I return in triumph from the Ammonites will be the LORD's, and I will sacrifice it as a burnt offering."

later,

36 "My father," she replied, "you have given your word to the LORD. Do to me just as you promised, now that the LORD has avenged you of your enemies, the Ammonites.

So God did not demand this sacrifice, Jephthah vowed to give it to him. I know you'll argue why didn't God stop this like he did Isaac, but I don't feel the stories are similar in except they share a case of human sacrifice (except Isaac's story doesn't actually have one like this one). In Isaac's story it was God who made the request, in this (Jephthah) story it was a vow he made. I do feel the fact that God did stop Isaac goes to show continuity that you question. I would also like to point out the many atrocities commented in the name of God, God (as far as I am aware) did not make his appearance to show is approval or disapproval of those actions, but rather have instructed us on how conduct ourselves and let that be the guideline for day to day living. I would also argue intuition and conscience are also available in these cases.

quote:

I hesistate to open up this can of worms, but of course in America such a system is in place - the death penalty removes supposedly 'inalienable' rights, so I'm sure that Americans could easily adjust to the idea that anyones rights might be taken away.

Not every state has a death penalty, nor does every American in the states that do agree with the death penalty. I believe that the unalienable right to live is guaranteed to all (Americans by way of the Declaration of Independence).

quote:

But many more liberal Christians and theologians are relucant to accept such an antropocentric god, and argue that biblical description is only of limited use in understanding god.

I don’t believe I share this view, or at least I can say I have not been convinced of it yet.

quote:

But under some systems, like the objective morality propounded by Christianity, there is no way you can decide - after all, all four are human souls.

I would say that Kant’s reasoning in pure ethics comes into play here. I can only be held accountable for my own actions. If it were that I must kill one man to save 3 others I would not do so because I’m not responsible for the actions whoever might kill those three men. It isn’t inaction as much as it is that I must answer for what I do, not others.
In your example, I would only argue that if you stand on a trains track you will sooner or later get hit by a train.

quote:

I think that this symbolism of Jesus on the cross as the ultimate sacrifice for all humanity is an almost universal symbolism, certainly within Anglicanism, but also within Catholicism and other brands of protestantism.

In the “brands of Protestantism” I have been in contact with, the cross is a symbol of the coming of the kingdom of Christ. For the Christians who see the symbol of Christ’s suffering there is no loss in that symbolism simply because he “didn’t suffer to death enough”.

quote:

But at the same time, this would forbid me from discussing euthanasia, abortion, drugs, any politics outside of the UK, what life was like fifty years ago, any news event that I did not have direct experience of and so on.

You must agree though that the people with experience in a field you speculate on would have some more information and expertise then one on the outside looking in. You have no definitive ground on which to stand. One might speculate the Ethics of Abortion, but to speculate the experience of abortion without even considering the testimony of those who have is, in my opinion, arrogant.

quote:

Again, I apologize.

Sorry - I may have snapped back a little too vigorously.

quote:

In this case I think you'll find (and surely in your study have seen) that they are Objective moralist.

Yes, indeed, dealing in such a broadstroke, I think that I could probably agree with this. After all, at the bottom of all Christian morality is the Divine Command Theory of ethics, which is about as morally objective as it is possible to get.

quote:

In the examples you gave I would tell you the Objective morals I would stress from it is that Christians are at times required to sacrifice the things most dear to them even without knowledge of the reason why except that it is the will of Almighty God that they do so (especially in the case is Isaac).

But, so my reading has led me to beleive, the teachings of the New Testament forbid human sacrifice as repugnant to god. If we are addressing the same god, why did he demand human sacrifice in this way? And further, having repreived Isaac because of Abraham's faith, why does he not reprieve Jephthah's daughter, who is equally virtuous? In this story, instead of god being merciful and rewarding faith, he actively punishes it by allowing Jephthah to kill his daughter. Even Job gets a replacement daughter as a reward (I also have quite sizeable problems with that as a moral tale, I have to say), so I don't think this is even internally consisitent.

quote:

The best answer I can give is that for Christians to except God (the God described in the bible at least) they must also except his Divine Authority.

But many more liberal Christians and theologians are relucant to accept such an antropocentric god, and argue that biblical description is only of limited use in understanding god.

quote:

Utilitarianism is still a subjective code of morals. If you agree with your own argument (as I see it, though I am probably mistaken) that not all Utilitarians will agree on the utility of every decision.

This is indeed true, up to a point. Obviously the theoretical utilitarian will always come to the same conclusion given the same circumstances, in the same way that the theoretical Christian will always do what biblical teachings tell them. Using Bentham's (highly flawed, I know) Hedonistic Calculus should result in the same result each time - and Mill's Rule theory means that once the general rule is formulated that general consistency should be upheld.

quote:

It also negates the idea that humans are endowed with unalienable rights, which in America (or at least its founding document) is considered backwards. For example, the utilitarian could argue the case of putting to death an innocent man (yourself) if it would save the lives of 3 innocent men (whose lives are not in your control). In doing so you have usurped (by your own conscience actions) one man’s right to live.

I hesistate to open up this can of worms, but of course in America such a system is in place - the death penalty removes supposedly 'inalienable' rights, so I'm sure that Americans could easily adjust to the idea that anyones rights might be taken away. After all, with this precedent of the government taking away inalienable rights, I really don't see why they shouldn't be able to do it in other places under the right circumstances.

quote:

For example, the utilitarian could argue the case of putting to death an innocent man (yourself) if it would save the lives of 3 innocent men (whose lives are not in your control).

And just to hone in on this point a bit more, it is indeed true that utilitiarianism allows for these kind of considerations. But under some systems, like the objective morality propounded by Christianity, there is no way you can decide - after all, all four are human souls. Let's change the example slightly, to the famous train track example: the train is going to run over six people unless you change the tracks so that the train crushes three people instead. If a Christian were at the controls, he would have to kill the six people, because by changing the tracks he is directly responsible for killing three people, whereas if he lets the train continue, he is only guilty of innaction (a line which is often confused in Christianity, but sin is 99% of the time involved in action rather than inaction).

And if you are Christian and you choose to kill only three people, then you are not operating within Chrisianity per se, but using utilitarian principles to govern your actions - you are acting when considering that the greatest good is the best outcome from your actions, which is the very definition of utiltiarianism.

quote:

I find no point in this argument, as his suffering was in fact and undeniably more painful then you or I know.

Unfortunately, your argument cuts both ways. You are arguing that we cannot know Chrits's pain, but that means that you cannot assign him a great deal of pain either - he might have been pain-free for all that we know. So it is no more a fact that he did suffer than he didn't - according to you both are equally probable. This is where my point about common sense begins to creep in - human beings have an evolutionary benefit which allows us to measure the pain of other human beings, called empathy. We can evaluate how much pain someone is likely to be in because it is useful, in terms of evolution, to be able to work out that it is less painful to put your foot on dry stepping stones than plunging it into freezing river water, and to work out if someone else who has trodden on a red hot coal is in a lot of pain or only a little pain.

And besides, Christ was after all god, so it seems unlikely that human pain, no matter how dire, was in any way to great for an omnipotent and omniscient being.

quote:

for those of us who do not share the same symbolism of the Cross?

I think that this symbolism of Jesus on the cross as the ultimate sacrifice for all humanity is an almost universal symbolism, certainly within Anglicanism, but also within Catholicism and other brands of protestantism.

quote:

My point being, I find it very bold of someone to describe the nature of something like "the general Christian soul" or warfare without having experience of it, and telling those who do that they are "wrong".

This makes a great deal of life incredibly difficult. If I read a poem about a landscape, I do not have to have visited the landscape to appreciate its beauty. I understand your reasons for finding it bold, but at the same time, there are differences between speculating on the nature of the Christian soul (which is not empirically verifiable) and the ethics of war. But at the same time, this would forbid me from discussing euthanasia, abortion, drugs, any politics outside of the UK, what life was like fifty years ago, any news event that I did not have direct experience of and so on. As Dr Greg House said,

quote:

I don't need to go to Detroit to know that it smells.

And the case of the Chrisitian soul is much more complicated than we have so far considered. If you are right about the existence of the soul, then I do have experience of it because I am a soul. On th other hand, if I am right then you have no more basis to speculate about it than I do, as neither you nor I have experience of it and we have both read similar materials relating to it.

And it's not as if I was talking without any experience whatsoever, as I might have been if I was some sort of fundamentalist Buddhist and wandered into this discussion beleiving the idea of soul to be actively harmful to the human spirit, and told you to shove your soul where the sun doesn't shine. My views are based on readings of the Bible and other such materials, including those from other religious traditions, the fact that I went to church (in Canterbury Cathedral, the home of Anglicanism and where we often received lectures from the Archbishop of Canterbury) every Sunday throughout my school life because it was part of the school rules, and six years of conversation on this site. I have not left the phenomenon univestigated, I assure you.

quote:

As far as my denomination. I do not affiliate myself with any one in particular. I find denomination to be vulgar. I believe all Christians are "the body" of Christ and should be united under that banner alone. I know this is an impossible situation for today's Church, as for myself, I will not play the "denomination game".

My studies first began at Atlanta Christian College. I am currently attending St.Leo university. As you've probably guessed, my studies are Distance Learning for the time being. At the end of my service I plan to attend Atlanta Christian College for a small while then (God willing) I'll attend Biola University, Talbot School of Theology.

Thanks for this - it just helps to have a bit of a handle on people so that you can understand their positions better, or at least I find it easier.

quote:

Originally posted by Brehon:

In the UK, generally at least, I think it would probably be considered a little too forward to suggest that someone views might be 'uniformed'. It lacks tact, and might be better put as 'not comprehensive' or some other variation.

Again, I apologize.

quote:

I don't think this was exactly what I meant to say, but I am willing to take up this point. There are numerous Christian ethical systems (approximately the same number as interpretations of the Bible), but one system in particular is relavent here - I was thinking of Fletcher's Situation Ethics, which are non-legalisitic, non-antinomian (sp?) and also non-objective as the name would suggest.

True enough, there are a vast number of Christian interetations of the bible. Although, lets speak in terms of at least general protestant and Roman Catholic beliefs. In this case I think you'll find (and surely in your study have seen) that they are Objective moralist. I'll give you the example of "Christ like" objective in Christian morality.

quote:

In fact, having read back over my post, I don't believe that I actually commented on such portions of the Bible. However on another thread I commented on the story of Jephthah, which might be a useful case in point here. god is directly responsible for the death of Jephthah's daughter, and the moral the story seems to promote is that sacrifice for god is necessary and, in this case, morally acceptable. Again, the story of Isaac shows such a momement at which I find biblical morality, quite candidly, frustratingly backwards.

If taken at face value, you have made your point. I will stress not all Christians do so however. I do not think it is fair to generalize all Christians as "fundamentalist". In the examples you gave I would tell you the Objective morals I would stress from it is that Christians are at times required to sacrifice the things most dear to them even without knowledge of the reason why except that it is the will of Almighty God that they do so (especially in the case is Isaac).

I would imagine that for an atheist, these stories do not make much sense. The bible even tells us to "be prepared" for such difficulties (as I am sure you know) in explaining the objective morals found in these instances. The best answer I can give is that for Christians to except God (the God described in the bible at least) they must also except his Divine Authority.

quote:

Utilitarianism offers one such alternative, though this is made much more subtle by Act and Rule variations (as well as the much more interesting variations demonstrated by modern utilitarians like dear old Peter Singer).

Utilitarianism is still a subjective code of morals. If you agree with your own argument (as I see it, though I am probably mistaken) that not all Utilitarians will agree on the utility of every decision. It also negates the idea that humans are endowed with unalienable rights, which in America (or at least its founding document) is considered backwards. For example, the utilitarian could argue the case of putting to death an innocent man (yourself) if it would save the lives of 3 innocent men (whose lives are not in your control). In doing so you have usurped (by your own conscience actions) one man’s right to live.

quote:

This is philosophically true, but is baulked at by common sense.

I must disagree. Christ's suffering may not have driven him insane, but suffered greatly none the less. I do not see how the intensity of the pain (that can be determined sensory having not undergone the same torture yourself) makes any form of "torture" inadequate? Could they Romans have done worse? Maybe, but I shudder the think of the human mind that will conceive it. No. I find no point in this argument, as his suffering was in fact and undeniably more painful then you or I know.

quote:

But you see, I think it does detract from the symbolism of the cross; more extreme Christians yearn to suffer the punishment of crucifiction so that they can share in Christ's ultimate suffering. But if this suffering is not ultimate (as indeed, if you believe in hell, it can't be) then it loses a lot of its power.

Then let us forgive these "extreme" Christians for those of us who do not share the same symbolism of the Cross? I do feel I am becoming redundant and I hope I am not beginning to frustrate you, but as I mentioned before the general protestant population (at least) should be judged as a whole and not on the conduct of the minority.

quote:

[quote]So how is he arrogant for speculating christianity just because he's well-versed in the subject of theology. Do you have to be Christian to speculate on the bible or something?

quote:

Thank you for leaping to my defense Wolfie - I do appreciate it.

Allow me to defend myself at least this way. I am a veteran of the Iraq war. I am currently serving me second deployment to Iraq. I was reading of a man’s views on "Just war theory" when he (maintaining his privacy here) mentioned he had never been in a war, military service, or so much as experienced a battle. I found myself appalled that he would make some of the comments he did on absolutely no experience of the topic he was commenting on... I suppose he could wax philosophical on any topic he wishes. Surely he maintains that right. But I wonder if his ideas of "Just War" would change if he had ever found himself fighting for his life and life of the friends around him.

My point being, I find it very bold of someone to describe the nature of something like "the general Christian soul" or warfare without having experience of it, and telling those who do that they are "wrong".

Having said all that I’ll be "out of touch" so to speak, for a while, a month maybe.

quote:

May I ask what denomination of Christian you are? If that isn't overly bold (which I don't think it is, but even so). Similarly, I would be interested to know where you are currently studying, but that might be too great a breach of privacy to spill out willing on the internet.

As far as my denomination. I do not affiliate myself with any one in particular. I find denomination to be vulgar. I believe all Christians are "the body" of Christ and should be united under that banner alone. I know this is an impossible situation for today's Church, as for myself, I will not play the "denomination game".

My studies first began at Atlanta Christian College. I am currently attending St.Leo university. As you've probably guessed, my studies are Distance Learning for the time being. At the end of my service I plan to attend Atlanta Christian College for a small while then (God willing) I'll attend Biola University, Talbot School of Theology.

My age/sex/and race I think I will not indulge for the world, as i probably have already said to much :-)

quote:

I would also like to address your interpretation of my remarks as hostile. I certainly did not intend them to be so.

In the UK, generally at least, I think it would probably be considered a little too forward to suggest that someones views might be 'uniformed'. It lacks tact, and might be better put as 'not comprehensive' or some other variation. Still, Americans are famed for thier directness, so I suppose I shouldn't really have been so startled by it.

quote:

The fundamental laws of nature that you are talking, I presume, maybe are complex, but not so much so that our empirical and rationalism belief forming mechanisms are not somewhat reliable.

What I meant by this, I think, is that our rational and empirical powers may well not be sufficiently reliable when we are talking about the cosmological scale. As the great Douglas Adams wrote:

quote:

"Space," it says, "is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly hugely mindbogglingly big it is. I mean you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to space."

Space is, at least, 93 billion light years across. This is not like saying 'the beach is five miles long', because part of the definition of beach is that it has various differnt types of end, such as where it meets the sea, or where it becomes merely solid land or earth instead. The edge of the universe is not like this, because there cannot be an edge to somethingness. Surely using the same sort of reasoning as the box car example allows, we have no experience or reason to beleive that the universe can be finite - I have no expereince of anything outside the universe, no experience of the universe suddenly petering out into gently foaming waves. I'm sorry, this paragraph is quite confused, but this is because I am confused by the sizes we are dealing with. Any attempt to really understand what infinity means makes my head ache.

quote:

If you believe that your studies in Religion, Theology, and Philosophy give you some grounding for you speculation of the Christian soul, I find that to be very arrogant.

So, I am to understand by the implications of this remark that only Christians or those who have been trained in Theology at university level are those capable or permitted to comment as to the nature of the Christian soul? And as I pointed out, it was a rant and my inclusion of it was only designed to refute your accustation that I was uniformed - theology is not my prime focus, but I think my list demonstrates that far from being a disinterested cynical observer, I have engaged with the problems of philosophy and theology to the greatest degree that my short life and education have allowed me to thus far.

May I ask what denomination of Christian you are? If that isn't overly bold (which I don't think it is, but even so). Similarly, I would be interested to know where you are currently studying, but that might be too great a breach of privacy to spill out willing on the internet.

quote:

I find it interesting that you disagree the Christianity is an objective morality. It most certainly is, and I don't believe I've ever met anyone who disagrees before.

I don't think this was exactly what I meant to say, but I am willing to take up this point. There are numerous Christian ethical systems (approximately the same number as interpretations of the Bible), but one system in particular is relavent here - I was thinking of Fletcher's Situation Ethics, which are non-legalisitic, non-antinomian (sp?) and also non-objective as the name would suggest.

quote:

Not everything in the Bible, i.e. the chronological portions in particular, is said to "good" things or even a model for objective moralism.

Since you were concerned that I had not addressed this point, I will endeavour to do so.

In fact, having read back over my post, I don't believe that I actually commented on such portions of the Bible. However on another thread I commented on the story of Jephthah, which might be a useful case in point here. god is directly responsible for the death of Jephthah's daughter, and the moral the story seems to promote is that sacrifice for god is necessary and, in this case, morally acceptable. Again, the story of Isaac shows such a momement at which I find biblical morality, quite candidly, frustratingly backwards.

quote:

And as a self confessed atheist, you must know that it would be difficult for someone with subjective morals or lackadaisical morals (at best) would have difficulty comprehending.

I have no problem understanding the raminifcations of having an objective morality, but I do have qualms about the nature of that morality. There are plenty of objective moral systems that are atheist-friendly so to speak. Utilitarianism offers one such alternative, though this is made much more subtle by Act and Rule variations (as well as the much more interesting variations demonstrated by modern utilitarians like dear old Peter Singer).

quote:

My comment of Christ's suffering was that you yourself have suffered neither Christ's punishment nor the Chinese tortures you mentioned and therefore are not qualified to critique one as "worse" than the other.

This is philosophically true, but is baulked at by common sense. I jab you with a pin. I set fire to your shoes. I shoot you repeatedly in the abdomen. As a human being capable of at least some empathy, I am able to distinguish between relative levels of pain. I may not have total understanding of pain, but I am willing to wager that I have the ability to distinguish between the human reactions to the above three examples. Similarly, in the case of someone who is tortured to the extent that they lose thier minds, it is probably fair to say that they undergo more pain than people who are tortured and do not lose thier minds. Hence the phrases 'death is too good for him' and 'a fate worse than death'. Jesus, at least as far as the Bible illustrates his life, does not show him going insane on the cross. Yes, crying out for a god who has forsaken you might be seen as an interesting paradox, but not one that denotes insanity. Hence, since Jesus was killed faster than average on the cross (remembering stab wounds et al) he cannot be said to have suffered to as great a degree as those tortured out of thier sanity. At least in the warm, commonsensical light of day if not the cold, harsh light of philsophical enquiry.

quote:

For some, a humiliating punishment is worse than a physical one.

Similarly to the above, I think there is a limit to which this is true. Human physiology does not allow this to be entirely true - we might say that it was worse, but an omniscient god could presumably not get embarassed - there is very little reason to be.

quote:

The suffering of Christ was indeed a harsh one, and I don't suppose it could be underscored simply because harsher punishments may exist.

But you see, I think it does detract from the symbolism of the cross; more extreme Christians yearn to suffer the punishment of crucifiction so that they can share in Christ's ultimate suffering. But if this suffering is not ultimate (as indeed, if you believe in hell, it can't be) then it loses a lot of its power.

quote:

I do very much enjoy our discussion; it is so rare to find someone with who I can discuss these topics with.

I certainly hope they continue, though I see that I am now at a signficant disadvantage in terms of education, and must struggle to keep up.

quote:

People need to learn how insignificant they are in the grand scheme of things.

I think this is an important point, and I think that both Feuerbach and Freud would be useful people to consider in this context. Isn't this an example of human beings needing the universe to be, in some symbolic way, more human?

quote:

So how is he arrogant for speculating christianity just because he's well-versed in the subject of theology. Do you have to be Christian to speculate on the bible or something?

Thank you for leaping to my defense Wolfie - I do appreciate it.

quote:

Christianity is extremely subjective. The morals inside it completely coincide with the morals of the time it was written.

And are of course massively different now, depending on ones denomination.

quote:

Especially the idea of a chronologically infinite universe

So basically you completely ignored the fact that time on Earth is vastly different than time in the universe? Nice.

So how is he arrogant for speculating christianity just because he's well-versed in the subject of theology. Do you have to be Christian to speculate on the bible or something?

Christianity is extremely subjective. The morals inside it completely coincide with the morals of the time it was written. For example, it is immoral to touch a woman during her menstrual cycle and if one does so they have to bath themselves like 3 times afterward. The same rule applies for masturbation. So how is this objective?

Anyways, aren't all morals subjective? They come from deciding what is right and what is wrong, depending on the person and their experiences. The way you decide what is good is by judging your past experiences and gained knowledge.

I do not understand how people can say 'Look at poor tortured Jesus' and then turn around and say 'Burn the heretics in an eternity of flames.' Doesn't this go against what Jesus taught? To love they enemey and to turn the other cheek? This, to me is the largest hypocrisy of the Bible. God sends gays, unbaptized children, 'heretics' and basically everyone who does not accept him to be tortured indefinitly, but Jesus says everyone is loved and that no one should be harmed and to treat thy neighbor as thy self. Why is there such a stark contrast here? I believe in the teachings of Jesus, quite strongly as a matter of fact (lol, despite what some on this silly site may say), but the rest of the Bible has hate and discrimination on every other page. This is why I dislike Christianity.

And on a side note, though Christ did suffer at the cross, it isn't like he was the one and only. So why don't we revere all who have died at the cross?

Metaphysical crap isn't real. Like ghosts and fairies and all that garbage.

Brehon:

The question of the infinity of the universe is largely speculative, even so that the speculators are not bold enough to say with certainty that the universe is infinite. Especially the idea of a chronologically infinite universe, this is possibly the most unlikely case possible.

Black holes are not an exception to gravity but rather an extreme concentration of gravity. Although that is also speculative to some degree. The fundamental laws of nature that you are talking, I presume, maybe are complex, but not so much so that our empirical and rationalism belief forming mechanisms are not somewhat reliable. That is to say, everything that begins ends, and all that exists begins, therefore all that exist ends. The very existence of the universe testifies to it being finite.

If you believe that your studies in Religion, Theology, and Philosophy give you some grounding for you speculation of the Christian soul, I find that to be very arrogant. I've myself have read the bible cover to cover more than 6 times, I've taken religious studies on the university level in Ethics, Ontology, Philosophy of religion, Metaphysics, Church history, Life and times of Christ, Paulinian Letters (to include Independent studies in Acts, and Romans) also I'm very well read in Descartes, Kierkegaard, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Kant, Russell, Saint Thomas (and Augustine), Bishop Sheen, and several others. I'm currently studying Apologetics and several other Biblical Studies courses. But perhaps the most reliable source I have to inform you that you are indeed misinformed is that I am a Christian. Although I am sure you are extremely well credentialed, you didn't respond to the reason I gave you for believing you to be misinformed in the first place.

I find it interesting that you disagree the Christianity is an objective morality. It most certainly is, and I don't believe I've ever met anyone who disagrees before. But very well, my point was that in to believe in objective morals, there would have to some conviction to follow those objective morals. It is not the case of repressed soul or self punished soul, but that the failure to meet the objective morals would cause conviction. And as a self confessed atheist, you must know that it would be difficult for someone with subjective morals or lackadaisical morals (at best) would have difficulty comprehending.

My comment of Christ's suffering was that you yourself have suffered neither Christ's punishment nor the Chinese tortures you mentioned and therefore are not qualified to critique one as "worse" than the other. Also the point of punishment being subject to the recipient comes into play. For some, a humiliating punishment is worse than a physical one. The suffering of Christ was indeed a harsh one, and I don't suppose it could be underscored simply because harsher punishments may exist.

I would suppose some Christians would have difficulty in accepting God's existence to be metaphysical, although I think when pressed, they you produce an answer that would seem to indicate God's existence is metaphysical. But I cannot be so bold as to be a speaker for all Christianity as I will not. And we can agree on this issue.

I do believe Christ was a physical manifestation of God. Yes. Although, as I said, the laws of nature and physics were subservient to his existence and in fact subject to Christ himself, evident in the "miracles" he was able to perform.

I would also like to address your interpretation of my remarks as hostile. I certainly did not intend them to be so. I might have been defensive to an extent, but I would hope you could see why. I apologize of I offended you, as I said it wasn't my intent. I do very much enjoy our discussion; it is so rare to find someone with who I can discuss these topics with.

Does anyone want to see why the universe is infinite?

Here look. Okay and this time I want you all to actually go to this site and zoom out on the picture so that way you can all understand how insignificant you are and how infinite the universe is. Now mind you, this is only the visible universe.
I wonder if anyone on this site ever looks at links, probably not. http://www.atlasoftheuniverse.com/12lys.html

String theory and mind you its been a while since I saw this on nova says that there are an infinite number of universes that collide in each other periodically. The can be very small in comparision to each other or very large. I can't remember much of this, it's been ages since I learned about it. So basically our universe is just a collison of two other universes and this can go on indefinitely. Another reason why the universe is infinite is because time is a very human concept and is thought of in relativity to our lives. Therefore, it is on an extremely small scale while the universe is on a massive scale of time, again see my link. One universe day could equal 1 billion human years, who knows.

Why do you think that there is a God just for us in this entire universe? Why us? Why would some all powerful being choose to make people the way they are? Because he was lonely?

People need to learn how insignificant they are in the grand scheme of things. The only reason for the existence of religion is the fact that people have this sick ego that tells them they are chosen and special, when in reality they are mere animals that are capable of using logic and exploiting resources. We will live and die like the beasts we are.

quote:

Why would you conclude the universe is infinite?

Because science has begun to reveal it to be chronologically infitie - at least speculatively so. Big Bang + Big Crunch theory demonstrates a schema for a universe that is infinite, and (although science is not my strongest suit) I'm sure Wolfie could enter this discussion about now and demonstrate how string theory also engages with this question.

quote:

The universe and its nature is subject to the same laws as everything else within nature.

An interesting tautology, but not one that is very helpful - afer all, there cannot be any laws of nature outside of the universe. That is kind of the whole point. And besides, the fundamental laws of nature are so mind-boggleling complex that we are in no position to suggest that they hold true everywhere in the univese. Look at gravity, for example, where, so I am led to believe, black holes are some sort of exception.

quote:

As far as your views of the Bible (in particular the OT) I find it to be still uninformed and lacking.

I do not believe this to be the case, and I think you are being rather forward in your evaluation of whether or not I am uniformed about any topic. I will now quote a rant, which is slightly aggressive, but it does sum up my credentials on this topic pretty well:

quote:

This is a mistaken assumption. I do know, at least a little, about the things I have argued here. I have read the Bible cover to cover six times; I took Religious Studies as one of my A-Levels (the last tier of education before university) in which the units I studied were Ethics and Developments in Christian Thought (which covered the traditional teachings of the Church through to the rise of Black Theology, Feminist Theology and Liberation Theology); I have also read the religious texts of a variety of other religions, including the Dhamapada (Buddhism), The Tao Teh Ching (Alternately: Dao Deh Jing, Taoism), The Analects (Confucianism), The Bhagavad Gita (Hinduism), The Koran (Islam), The Tanakh (Judaism), and the gnostic gospels to boot. I have considered these issues in some detail and I cannot help but arrive at the inescapable conclusion that god does not exist and that there is no life after death.

This rant was pointed squarely at another question, so I should say that in addition to the above, I have also read a number of works on Christian theology including several commentaries on the Old and New Testament that are considered standard reading for undergraduates studying Theology at Cambridge. I hope this establishes that whatever my views on the Bible may be, they are not uniformed.

quote:

med. The Christian soul is one that does believe in objective moralism and therefore, encouraged to follow that objective moralism in lieu of a lackadaisical and subjective moralism.

Since we've taken the stylistic gloves off our writing, I feel quite content to point out that this doesn't really constitute a point at all, and certainly not a rebuttal of my remarks. The Christian soul, taking soul as a noun and not as a metonym/synecdoche, is extant in everyone, not merely those who believe.I stated that Christianity requires that the good soul suffer, and you responded that Christianity is an objective morality, not a lackadaisical subjective morality (while I disagree with your point, I applaud the use of lackadaisical!)

quote:

Your critiques of Christ’s suffering is also subjective, as you yourself indicated, and therefore I feel is not a valid or even a point toward anything at all.

I must confess that I do not understand how this can be true without stripping out a major Christian tradition. Christianity hinges on the belief that Jesus sacrificed himself for you, and that that sacrifice was the most meaningful event in the entireity of creation because god suffered the worst extermes of human experience for your soul. If we are not qualified to make this subjective remark as to the nature of human pain, then it seems that Christ's sacrifice has much less of a powerful symbolic nature than I was led to believe it is supposed to have.

quote:

I think you know the answer.

Indeed, I'm sorry, I thought it would be useful to point out that Santa Claus was real, rather than isn't real.

quote:

God's existence is a metaphysical one

I think that a number of more fundamentalist Christians would have a great deal of difficulty with this statement.

quote:

if God existence was tangible in the physical word,

But, as a Christian, presumably you believe this has already happened?

Brehon:
How does an Atheist conclude the universe is infinite I wonder? I was sad to see my topic on the Kalam CA kind of faded off. However, there is no time like the present. Why would you conclude the universe is infinite? Perhaps you could tell me the scientific method you used to research this conclusion, or the deductive reasoning you have for it?

No, the universe is not, and cannot be infinite. The universe and its nature is subject to the same laws as everything else within nature.

As far as your views of the Bible (in particular the OT) I find it to be still uninformed and lacking. Not everything in the Bible, i.e. the chronological portions in particular, is said to "good" things or even a model for objective moralism. Your wax on Christianity and the soul is also uninformed. The Christian soul is one that does believe in objective moralism and therefore, encouraged to follow that objective moralism in lieu of a lackadaisical and subjective moralism. Your critiques of Christ’s suffering is also subjective, as you yourself indicated, and therefore I feel is not a valid or even a point toward anything at all.

If you are asking me if I believe the "saints" were good people and their deeds noteworthy of a model life, then I would say yes. If you are asking if the commercialized figures in the mainstream culture are accurate representation if the "saints" I think you know the answer.

The issue of God having mass isn't an issue at all. God's existence is a metaphysical one and if God existence was tangible in the physical word, the characteristics of God's nature is superseding of nature in our understanding, and not subject to its laws, but rather nature subject to God. As for the infinite universe argument, I will just wait.

Wolfie:

I find it odd a Atheist would have morals, and a belief on the afterlife. Especially an atheist that forms these beliefs based of sensory interpretation and interpretation of religions’ that they believe to be mislead and unfounded in the first place.

quote:

I used logic and physics as my guide to the "universe" however; I find it to be the answer of "how" instead of "why".

As an atheist, I consider this to be your mistake. Asking 'why' of the universe is a category mistake - the universe is not a finite object, of which you can demand to know the purpose, but a totality, and thus free from any suspicion as to purpose. A similar case, I think, would be asking 'why gravity?' which is not a question that admits of a ready answer. 'how gravity' does (sort of), but as to inferring a purpose behind it, well, that just seems to be overstepping the bounds a little.

quote:

It seems like you are a little in the dark about Christianity and the bible.

Christianity is an exceptionally dark religion, much more so than people commonly acknowledge. It is in fact rather brutish and, some might say, so conflicted as to represent amorality rather than a morality. It is a religion that states that unearned suffering is redemptive, where, in essence, masochism of the soul is encouraged. It is a religion that embraces both the Old Testament, with its bloody wars, rapes, dismemberments and a thousand other evils, as well as the New Testament, with its reverence of one human-god who was crucified. (And, despite Christianity's claims that this is the greatest act of redemption ever, Christ got off relatively lightly in terms of actual pain - compare with the tortures undergone by the Chinese at the hands of the Japanese et al).

quote:

Santa Clause is just one big practical joke.

A strange position for a Christian. Aren't you supposed to reverence or worship (depending if you're a protestant or Catholic respectively) the saints?

quote:

And give us proof that God has no mass, weight, shape, nothing, etc...

Well, I think I should be able to do that. After all, god is supposedly infinite, and so is the universe. So either god is the universe (which would leave many Christians deeply unsatisfied) or the two infinities are slowly crashing together in hideous majesty. In short, I think if god did have some sort of mass that he would cease to be god - I believe that is an reasonably old idea (Judaism). I don't believe that, obviously.

quote:

'Christians are only Christians because they were raised that way, they follow their parents footsteps'

I would wager, that in the UK where rates of religious belief are very low, that this is true. At my secondary school (one physically built into the side of the seat of Anglicanism) only a very small number of students were strong believers, and very few of them were scholars. From which I infer that this is, in the broadstroke at least, true.

quote:

God isn 't real because he has no mass, no weight, no shape, nothing. He isn't an energy nor a plasma. That's why god physically does not exist. Same thing with souls.

And give us proof that God has no mass, weight, shape, nothing, etc...

What belief mechanisms did I use? wtf. Umm, let's see, as a human being I have morals that I learned as I move through life. I see how others feel when they are treated in different ways so I kind of go from that. I read a lot about different religions and then formulate what I believe the after-life will be if there is one.

When someone is told by generations that something is real, they will believe it, hence why people believe in god.

God isn 't real because he has no mass, no weight, no shape, nothing. He isn't an energy nor a plasma. That's why god physically does not exist. Same thing with souls.

In order for something to exist it kind of needs some form of mass to it.

quote:

Originally posted by Wolfie:
The laws of physics mean that there are certain things that can and cannot happen in our universe. God is one of those things. Look at string theory.

Expand on this...

I would agree that many people follow in the religious footsteps of their parents, just as many people end up in the same line of work as their parents, or with similar interests or political beliefs, etc. This just seems to be the way the world works, be it genetic tendencies, brainwashing, or just human nature. My thinking is, to each his own. I try not to think or preach my beliefs (or lack thereof) to others because I know that some day my beliefs may change. A lot of people don't find religion until later in life, after certain life experiences. The same goes for a lot of things, like views on abortion, politics, homosexuality, etc., depending on what you are confronted with throughout life. We are all different, and we all internalize things differently depending on where we come from and where we're going. Why would there be so many different religions out there if we were all the same and meant to believe in the same things? The world would be such a boring place, right??

Physics do no disprove God, and you still haven't supplied me with one example, just a theory. Physically it is impossible for a bumble bee's wings to suspend him in flight. Still it happens.

Santa Clause is just one big practical joke. People are told he is real by people who know full well he isn't. This isn't the same case with God. That is why it is a joke.

1) We are told Santa is real
2) We learn he is not
3) We are told by the same people God is real
4) Therefore he is not real

Not very strong logic here.

And what belief forming mechanisms did you use to form your belief that there is an afterlife?

The laws of physics mean that there are certain things that can and cannot happen in our universe. God is one of those things. Look at string theory.

To me god is not real, like santa claus. When you are a child you believe with all your heart that santa is real because your parents tell you he is, as do television shows and story books. You know he is real when you are a child and everyone around you is telling you he exists. The same principle can be applied to this idea of god/gods. From the age of birth children are told by their parents and television and stories that god is real. If they did not have this ingrained in them at a young age, all their lives, there would be far fewer christians.

i don't see how that is a joke....

I believe in an after-life, however it really is riduculous to think that there is one being who controls everything.

If god is real he is a tyrant. ^.^

It seems like you are a little in the dark about Christianity and the bible.

I am still now sure what you are talking about by saying physics disproving God. Perhaps you could give me an example to help maybe? Maybe, an article that you've read?

I am also not sure that the frequency of appearance is evident that it is more important. I think -in this a social case especially- it proves more relevance than anything. That is to say there are more homosexuals than "animal lovers(?)".

I am not going to pretend to know God's will and consciousness. But I do not believe our existence to be one of hand outs and always sunshine. This would remove the element of faith (believes without seeing).

If God has zero logic, then perhaps you can explain to me how? Comparing him to Santa Clause isn't very compelling "logic".

This reminds me of a joke. Scientists go to God and say, "We don't need you anymore because we can do everything you can." God says, "Oh? Ok then, make a person." The scientists say, "Ha! That's easy! We just take some dust and...." God interrupts and says, "Hey! Get your own dust."

Why do we need to know the 'why' at this moment. What is it with this need to 'have a reason for everything' at this moment in time. Someday we will know why the universe exists but that will not be known for many, many years, if ever. Who cares why it exists. That's not as important as the how or the 'what will be.'

The laws of physics disprove the existance of a god. And you cannot change those in anyway. When I say the discovery channel I am talking about those who have an interest in the physical world and how it actually works, rather than those who parade around with falsehoods about the universe.

That's actually kind of sad that the bible says people who worship 'god's enemy' are better than those who just don't feel the need to worship anything at all....

Did you know the bible also says homosexuality is worse than beastiality? I cannot remember the section name, but it is the one where it says 'a man shall not lie down with another man.' It says that line twice and only something against beastiality once. Just thought this was silly. I don't know.

If God was real why does he kill so many of his followers with natural disasters? Why does he let so many of his people suffer? Why doesn't he perform more miracles.

I'm sorry, I just associate God with Santa Claus. I mean come on God can always hear you... (like Santa) he works in mysterious ways and brings us little gifts that we can't always tell if its from him. It just makes no sense.

I just cannot believe in something that has zero logic to it.

Personally I think all the stories from the bible might be true... They are not a result from god, but from aliens. ^.^

I'm sorry, I must still disagree.

I used logic and physics as my guide to the "universe" however; I find it to be the answer of "how" instead of "why".

I do not see how nature, physics or the discovery channel disprove or otherwise suggest the inexistence of a omnipotent agent. Or perhaps we could agree better with, "an agent that is sometimes associated with 'god'".

And as far as "satanic" rebellion to Christian upbringing, I think both the parents and God himself would prefer it to atheism. Rev 3:14-16

Also, your statement about not have seen or have any record of existence as being a cause for not not believing something is also a fallible system of logic. You cannot prove by record that he has not been seen by anyone, so your argument is self-defeating as well.