Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: March 29, 2024, 6:43 am

Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
What would it take to change your mind?
#61
RE: What would it take to change your mind?
(January 8, 2009 at 11:36 pm)Demonaura Wrote: If I'm understanding it right then basically, if I commit these sins (such as cursing gods name) then it may not be a christians job to do the deed but, to trust that god will judge and shorten my lifespan himself if he concludes I deserve it.


I don't think God is 'shortening' anyone's lives (since the 1st Century) from the 70 or 80 odd years we usually live for if we believe the claims of the early Church and Jesus' teachings. We are being permitted to live our lives for good or bad and some of us may die sooner due to illness, natural disasters or crime. There is no evidence that God is dealing in a supernatural way with 'the world' (or non believers for the purposes of this discussion).
"The eternal mystery of the world is its comprehensibility"

Albert Einstein
Reply
#62
RE: What would it take to change your mind?
For me to start believing it would take loads and loads of evidence.
Seeing isn't even believing for me. If I saw an angel appearing before me, someone probably drugged me or I'm becoming psychotic.
Reply
#63
RE: What would it take to change your mind?
I think I got ya CR, makes more sense in my head now lol.

Luke: Indeed, anecdotal evidence is bad evidence for this reason. Unless other people see what you see and hear what you hear it's probably not there.

I've heard many preachers say god spoke to them in person but, what they are describing is common sense and intuition. You didn't jump off that bridge because god told you not too! You didn't jump off because it was a bad f*king idea! (Little inside joke there)
Reply
#64
RE: What would it take to change your mind?
(January 8, 2009 at 10:44 am)CoxRox Wrote: When Jesus mentions that families will be destroyed as a result of Him, He is talking about the unavoidable consequences of families that don't all accept Him as the saviour. Back then, the Romans killed the Christians, so can you image a family where some didn't believe and carried on living, and some did believe and so were killed? These 'divisions' are human reactions and obviously cause heartache, but it isn't something that Jesus 'wanted' to happen.
So if I understand you correctly - when you say Jesus is in favour of the death penalty you mean the penalty that all humans (and all other life?) suffer - death. We all die in the end. You only mean that? The killing isn't done by Jesus but by people? Right?

If this is so - does that suggest that you think that when Jesus said - to paraphrase, -: "I come not to bring peace, but a sword" - he was just being metaphorical? Right?

Correct? Wrong? Thoughts?

And IF that is the case. How do you know its a metaphor? Or where is there evidence that its a metaphor to make it at least probable that its one?
evf
Reply
#65
RE: What would it take to change your mind?
(January 9, 2009 at 10:05 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: So if I understand you correctly - when you say Jesus is in favour of the death penalty you mean the penalty that all humans (and all other life?) suffer - death. We all die in the end. You only mean that? The killing isn't done by Jesus but by people? Right?

No. I don't mean that. As I understand the claim of Christianity, Jesus being a Jew upheld the Mosaic laws and that included capital punishment. When he started his ministry at the age of 30, he started to demonstrate on a small scale what sort of power the Kingdom of God would one day accomplish ie healings of sick people, dead people coming back to life. When he had an opportunity to take part in a stoning, he advocated forgiveness. Jesus does allude to a future time of judging, and punishment and the orthodox view is that Jesus will kill his oponents when He returns to the earth.

If this is so - does that suggest that you think that when Jesus said - to paraphrase, -: "I come not to bring peace, but a sword" - he was just being metaphorical? Right?
Correct? Wrong? Thoughts?

And IF that is the case. How do you know its a metaphor? Or where is there evidence that its a metaphor to make it at least probable that its one?

[/b]When He came the first time he brought a 'spiritual sword'. There is nothing in the New Testament to suggest he ever used a sword literally or took part in any capital punishments. When He returns the second time it is understood He will use not so much a literal sword (although it could be read literally I suppose)but literal punishment by death at the battle of Armageddon. This is a real war waged by real armies. (Rev11:18, Rev 16:14, Rev19:11-16) Once this battle is fought and His enemies have been destroyed, the 1000 year Kingdom will be established and after the thousand year reign, He will resurrect all those people who have ever lived and died. Rev19:17-21 Rev 20:1-15. Rev21:1-7[/b].
evf

This is a big subject and the few scriptures I've provided don't really do it justice. Basically we can conclude that Jesus was in favour of a 'life for a life'. God's justice (as claimed by the Bible) requires the punishment of death for sinning. Jesus gave his life and was willing to die to put an end to the sin-death cycle. [/b]
"The eternal mystery of the world is its comprehensibility"

Albert Einstein
Reply
#66
RE: What would it take to change your mind?
Interesting.

And its interesting to me that you say that "When He returns the second time it is understood He will use not so much a literal sword (although it could be read literally I suppose)" (my bolding).

If it could be read literally by what criteria do you decide whether its literal or metaphorical? How do you stop yourself from simply cherry picking?

As with any similar passages. And of course I am Including - ones about Jesus and/or with Jesus in them.
Evf
Reply
#67
RE: What would it take to change your mind?
(January 11, 2009 at 8:58 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: Interesting.

And its interesting to me that you say that "When He returns the second time it is understood He will use not so much a literal sword (although it could be read literally I suppose)" (my bolding).

If it could be read literally by what criteria do you decide whether its literal or metaphorical? How do you stop yourself from simply cherry picking?

As with any similar passages. And of course I am Including - ones about Jesus and/or with Jesus in them.
Evf

It is usually clear from the context when a scripture is speaking in a metaphorical sense. (I don't want to sound glib, but after twenty odd years reading it you become confident that you are understanding it correctly, although I'm sure I still misunderstand some of it). In the verses I quoted from Revelation, they are clear about the purposes of Jesus returning and the imagery of warfare, swords etc is used. There is no doubt that what these verses are claiming is that God is going to destroy all who oppose the establishment of His Kingdom via Jesus. How is he going to 'destroy' them? Either they will drop down dead possibly via earthquakes or other natural forces and/or maybe Jesus with His armies of angels will literally kill people. There is only one end result: the deaths of millions of people. The book of Revelation is full of symbolic imagery but the principles or 'results' they depict, are in my opinion, clear to understand. I hasten to add there is much in Revelation that I do not understand fully, but as regards Jesus' returning, when we take the other books of the Greek Scriptures (NT) into consideration, then I believe we can be clear of the overall meaning of what Jesus' second coming will entail.
"The eternal mystery of the world is its comprehensibility"

Albert Einstein
Reply
#68
RE: What would it take to change your mind?
Of course there are many people who see it in different ways. Both uneducated fundamentalists - and also 'sophisticated' theologians do disagree on things too.

This is what I mean by the Cherry Picking. You can read stuff literally and metaphorically. And I don't think its always that clear - I think a lot of cherry picking is going on.

After all there are some parts in the bible that just can't be taken metaphorically - they are clearly literal. But they are cherry-picked because, as a believer, if you don't do so your basically just another fundamentalist - unless there's some way around that or something? Although that would sound like probably just another way of cherry-picking again but perhaps more disguised.

The thing is - about theologians - if they all agreed with each other - would there be much point in theology?

Although I of course don't think there's a point anyway. But I mean would even the religious see there to be a point in 'theology' if they just all agreed on the subject? Wouldn't be much of an 'ology' is that what the case (hypothetically speaking) would it?

Everyone disagrees on the bible apart from when its obvious, it at least, seems to me. And when its not obvious - how do you get away from the cherry picking? How could anyone say their own personal vague interpretation as above the others?

The fundamentalists are the dangerous ones and take it the most literally. Although they don't cherry-pick and try and have it both ways so much one could perhaps say. Although of course I'm glad the moderates don't wish to take the books literally.

But its not really a question of wish. Why believe certain parts a certain way, personally? Its not mutual. If everyone sees it so differently and its all subjective how can it then simultaneously also support an objective truth about the universe?

If its all subjective and vague then that's not evidence and it might as well be the FSM. If its objective but the evidence is the bible itself to be taken (more) literally and less vaguely - then that evidence is also no evidence at all, at once again, it might as well be the FSM.

So it seems either the more vague and misleading moderates or the more literal, straight to the point, but more worrying (to say the least) fanatical fundamentalists - that won't change their mind no matter how delusion their claims are and how sane the alternative is (rejecting strong claimed bullshit that isn't based on any evidence). And how strong the contrary evidence is. - Either way, it seems both fail for slightly different reasons. But the reason they have in common (the big one) is - no evidence.

Thoughts?
Evf
Reply
#69
RE: What would it take to change your mind?
(January 12, 2009 at 11:48 am)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: Of course there are many people who see it in different ways. Both uneducated fundamentalists - and also 'sophisticated' theologians do disagree on things too.

This is what I mean by the Cherry Picking. You can read stuff literally and metaphorically. And I don't think its always that clear - I think a lot of cherry picking is going on.
You are right. There are things that are unclear, and even the stuff that is 'clear' is still cherry picked.

After all there are some parts in the bible that just can't be taken metaphorically - they are clearly literal. But they are cherry-picked because, as a believer, if you don't do so your basically just another fundamentalist - unless there's some way around that or something? Although that would sound like probably just another way of cherry-picking again but perhaps more disguised.
I see why it seems that way, but two examples I offer that are not 'cherry picking' but 'interpretation' issues are the creation and the flood. Now many 'believers' take the creation accounts in Genesis to be very simplistic accounts that aren't meant to be taken literally. You may say we're 'twisting' the understanding to fit science and maybe that is the case. Many christians believe the flood was local- this eliminates all those 'horrible' problems.

The thing is - about theologians - if they all agreed with each other - would there be much point in theology?


Although I of course don't think there's a point anyway. But I mean would even the religious see there to be a point in 'theology' if they just all agreed on the subject? Wouldn't be much of an 'ology' is that what the case (hypothetically speaking) would it?
Surely agreeing on something is preferable to contentions but it's easier said than done. Look at politics.
Everyone disagrees on the bible apart from when its obvious, it at least, seems to me. And when its not obvious - how do you get away from the cherry picking? How could anyone say their own personal vague interpretation as above the others?
I don't know if my interpretation is right. I cannot be sure. There is enough that I can be relatively sure of.

The fundamentalists are the dangerous ones and take it the most literally. Although they don't cherry-pick and try and have it both ways so much one could perhaps say. Although of course I'm glad the moderates don't wish to take the books literally.

But its not really a question of wish. Why believe certain parts a certain way, personally? Its not mutual. If everyone sees it so differently and its all subjective how can it then simultaneously also support an objective truth about the universe?

If its all subjective and vague then that's not evidence and it might as well be the FSM.
Hence why I don't attend any church. I am not convinced enough that any of them are 'true' or indeed that Christianity is true.
If its objective but the evidence is the bible itself to be taken (more) literally and less vaguely - then that evidence is also no evidence at all, at once again, it might as well be the FSM.

So it seems either the more vague and misleading moderates or the more literal, straight to the point, but more worrying (to say the least) fanatical fundamentalists - that won't change their mind no matter how delusion their claims are and how sane the alternative is (rejecting strong claimed bullshit that isn't based on any evidence). And how strong the contrary evidence is. - Either way, it seems both fail for slightly different reasons. But the reason they have in common (the big one) is - no evidence.
I agree there is no physical proof for Jesus or the God of the bible, but I believe there is indirect evidence of a 'designer', but I know my reasoning may be misleading me to see it that way and so it could be a load of bullshit. Dodgy
Thoughts?
Evf
"The eternal mystery of the world is its comprehensibility"

Albert Einstein
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Question on mind miaharun 19 998 March 3, 2022 at 11:57 am
Last Post: The Grand Nudger
  How often do your beliefs change? Ahriman 37 2739 January 23, 2022 at 10:03 pm
Last Post: paulpablo
  Are there any theists here who think God wants, or will take care of, Global Warming? Duty 16 3444 January 19, 2020 at 11:50 am
Last Post: Smedders
  "Don't take away people's hope" Brian37 96 9004 August 8, 2019 at 7:20 pm
Last Post: WinterHold
  My take on Christianity - Judaism - Islam Mystic 32 6504 November 14, 2018 at 1:08 pm
Last Post: Reltzik
  Why We don't take your Holy Scriptures Seriously vulcanlogician 75 7492 October 25, 2018 at 5:15 pm
Last Post: Minimalist
  If you're pro-life, how far do you take that? robvalue 147 13137 August 10, 2018 at 4:07 pm
Last Post: Catholic_Lady
  Is a sea change on the horizon? Angrboda 5 579 July 22, 2018 at 6:59 pm
Last Post: brewer
  Satirical logic for the atheistic mind Drich 158 17901 June 13, 2018 at 9:22 pm
Last Post: Amarok
  Can prayer change God's perfect plan? MellisaClarke 217 62912 May 23, 2017 at 8:33 am
Last Post: SteveII



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)