(November 18, 2013 at 12:17 am)apophenia Wrote:

(November 17, 2013 at 12:27 pm)Jacob(smooth) Wrote: the most honest reading of the bible....

nuh uh.

Tis so!

(November 17, 2013 at 12:27 pm)Jacob(smooth) Wrote: the most honest reading of the bible leads us to the concept of physical resurrection for us, and Lake of fire for you. Given the time elapsed since it was written, that's getting tricky. Gonna be standing room only, and that's not my idea of a fun eternity! And the Lake of fire is just plain silly.

I think oblivion is probably about right. As to heaven, the phrase most often used by Jesus is eternal life. Eternal does not mean for all time, it means outside of time. I can't conceive of what existence would be like outside of time so no idea what that would look like either.

So, if you've got an honest reading of the bible leading you in one direction, and your version of this concept leading you in another, doesn't that mean yours is a dishonest reading of the bible?

(November 18, 2013 at 6:39 am)Esquilax Wrote:

(November 17, 2013 at 12:27 pm)Jacob(smooth) Wrote: the most honest reading of the bible leads us to the concept of physical resurrection for us, and Lake of fire for you. Given the time elapsed since it was written, that's getting tricky. Gonna be standing room only, and that's not my idea of a fun eternity! And the Lake of fire is just plain silly.

I think oblivion is probably about right. As to heaven, the phrase most often used by Jesus is eternal life. Eternal does not mean for all time, it means outside of time. I can't conceive of what existence would be like outside of time so no idea what that would look like either.

So, if you've got an honest reading of the bible leading you in one direction, and your version of this concept leading you in another, doesn't that mean yours is a dishonest reading of the bible?

No, my reading of the bible is, I think, honest. But my opinion is different to my reading of the bible. To put it another way my opinion is not wholly based on my reading of the bible. I (I think) read what the Bible said about heaven and hell, dismissed it, and formed a different view based on, but not following what the Bible says. Does that make any sense?

Sometimes I think, an honest reading of the bible leads to the conclusion that what the Bible says is wrong. Faced with that, a theist has three choices.

1. Conclude that the Bible is a fairy tale and become an atheist.

2. Conclude that either some or all of the bible is wrong, or miswritten, mistranslated or misread and form a view which is influenced by, but not dictated by, the Bible.

3. Reinterpret the bible to say that it says what it does not actually say.

I think 3 is intellectually dishonest. I'm a 2. You I guess are a one.

So let me give an example. The colour of the robe Jesus was crucified in. One gospel has it as red, another as purple.

A 1. Will conclude that it can't have been both, therefore the account is unreliable.

A 2. Will conclude that it shows fallibility or errancy in the authors of the bible. However they may conclude that since red and purple are similar, it was probably somewhere between the two, or that one of the authors was colourblind. Or that perhaps it was a made up robe. A 2 is full of doubt.

A 3. Will probably say that since the bible is inerrant, there is a colour which is reddish purple, neither one nor other but accurately reportable as either. That as such the robe was red AND purple. Sort of schrodingers dressing gown. I think that's dishonest because red is red and purple is purple.

Sorry, not a very coherent answer I know.

(November 18, 2013 at 7:33 am)Jacob(smooth) Wrote: No, my reading of the bible is, I think, honest. But my opinion is different to my reading of the bible. To put it another way my opinion is not wholly based on my reading of the bible. I (I think) read what the Bible said about heaven and hell, dismissed it, and formed a different view based on, but not following what the Bible says. Does that make any sense?

I get what you're saying, but then I'm not sure why you would do that. How can you be sure your views comport with reality, and aren't just things you've spun based on your own preferences and modern sensibilities?

These are existential claims, after all; opinion doesn't factor into the process at all, and if you're taking any part of this to be true, you're risking your eternal soul by doing so. Maybe not in the case of Jesus' robe, but with regards to the lake of fire stuff, and especially how one ends up there, what you've interpreted things to mean now is meaningless; the rules are set regardless of what you've taken them to say, and the more you differ from the scriptures, the more you stray from the one objective piece of direct address your religion has.

I appreciate your candor and level headedness, and I'm not trying to stir shit or anything, but it seems to me you've, at least in part, invented your own version of christianity, according to your own perspectives and opinions and, at that point... what's the point?

(November 18, 2013 at 8:08 am)Esquilax Wrote:

(November 18, 2013 at 7:33 am)Jacob(smooth) Wrote: No, my reading of the bible is, I think, honest. But my opinion is different to my reading of the bible. To put it another way my opinion is not wholly based on my reading of the bible. I (I think) read what the Bible said about heaven and hell, dismissed it, and formed a different view based on, but not following what the Bible says. Does that make any sense?

I get what you're saying, but then I'm not sure why you would do that. How can you be sure your views comport with reality, and aren't just things you've spun based on your own preferences and modern sensibilities?

These are existential claims, after all; opinion doesn't factor into the process at all, and if you're taking any part of this to be true, you're risking your eternal soul by doing so. Maybe not in the case of Jesus' robe, but with regards to the lake of fire stuff, and especially how one ends up there, what you've interpreted things to mean now is meaningless; the rules are set regardless of what you've taken them to say, and the more you differ from the scriptures, the more you stray from the one objective piece of direct address your religion has.

I appreciate your candor and level headedness, and I'm not trying to stir shit or anything, but it seems to me you've, at least in part, invented your own version of christianity, according to your own perspectives and opinions and, at that point... what's the point?

You're not stirring the shit at all. We're just talking.

How can I be sure? Lol, do I sound sure to you? About anything? If so I've given you the wrong impression.

Opinion absolutely factors. We all form our opinion based on the information available. I think opinion is all anyone has about anything.

I don't believe that the Bible is direct address. Nor, coincidentally, would mist Christians agree that it's the only form of direct address. We hear voices remember ;-))

And yes, I've constructed my own version of Christianity. I've cherry picked, redacted, reinterpreted and selectively edited it to fit the small space between my ears, my preformed world view and my personal morality. And you know what? I think each and every Christian has done the same. Otherwise, logically, we would all share the same views on everything. And we so palpably don't! You think there are arguments here, you should see what goes down in the private bits of Christian forums!

As to what's the point? Because it helps me to cope with life. It brings me pleasure and comfort and saves me examining hard truths too closely.

(November 18, 2013 at 8:23 am)Jacob(smooth) Wrote: You're not stirring the shit at all. We're just talking.

Good.

Quote:And yes, I've constructed my own version of Christianity. I've cherry picked, redacted, reinterpreted and selectively edited it to fit the small space between my ears, my preformed world view and my personal morality. And you know what? I think each and every Christian has done the same. Otherwise, logically, we would all share the same views on everything. And we so palpably don't! You think there are arguments here, you should see what goes down in the private bits of Christian forums!

Aren't you concerned that you might be misinterpreting, though? I'm not one for Pascal's Wager, but if I did end up believing in a god, I probably wouldn't be so blase about avoiding his wrath.

Quote:As to what's the point? Because it helps me to cope with life. It brings me pleasure and comfort and saves me examining hard truths too closely.

Sounds more like a worldview than a religion to me. Then again, I'm not gonna presume to tell you what you are; you're more open about it than most, which is way refreshing, anyway.

(November 18, 2013 at 8:23 am)Jacob(smooth) Wrote: As to what's the point? Because it helps me to cope with life. It brings me pleasure and comfort and saves me examining hard truths too closely.

Jacob, I think this is precisely what bothers atheists so much- even about level-headed Christians like you. The idea that people are choosing something that prevents them from examining hard truths (like the finality of death or the mercilessness of disease, or simply our isolation in our own minds) is a difficult thing to understand. The way you phrased this seems to indicate that you know a truth is out there, but you are going to mask it with something else that could possibly be a fiction. If that's not what you mean, could you clarify?

(November 18, 2013 at 9:01 am)Zazzy Wrote:

(November 18, 2013 at 8:23 am)Jacob(smooth) Wrote: As to what's the point? Because it helps me to cope with life. It brings me pleasure and comfort and saves me examining hard truths too closely.

Jacob, I think this is precisely what bothers atheists so much- even about level-headed Christians like you. The idea that people are choosing something that prevents them from examining hard truths (like the finality of death or the mercilessness of disease, or simply our isolation in our own minds) is a difficult thing to understand. The way you phrased this seems to indicate that you know a truth is out there, but you are going to mask it with something else that could possibly be a fiction. If that's not what you mean, could you clarify?

Sort of.

Ok let me mangle an analogy. Best bit of my day is when I go home and my kids are excited to see me. There's hugs and tickling and laughter and it's all rather lovely.

Now I know that children are genetically programmed to have attachments to their parents as a survival trait. I also know that it's sociologically programmed into them, and that on some level they know they get more nice things for being good than if they are little shits.

I know that my wife is with me because I'm the best she can do and tick most of her boxes. Because I provide for her and for the children which genetics program her to protect. That if I stopped doing those things shed probably go find someone who would.

But at the end of the day I don't really want to examine those truths too closely. I'd rather have lots of hugs and use the shorthand of "love" to encapsulate all of those genetic, biochemical and psychosocial elements, all of which are fundamentally self serving. Because if I dwelt on that, is be even more of a miserable bastard than I already am. So, like most of us, I construct a simple little fable, that in our family we all love each other. I mask the truth with a comforting lie (or perhaps model is a better word) ... and I spend all day looking forward to going home.

Reductionism is a fine thing in science. Necessary and brings us as close to truths as we can get. But I don't want to live that way. I don't want to know why whisky makes me happy, I'm just happy that it does. I think in some ways the human condition is like an onion. As much as we might like to peel the layers to see what gives it it's form, you just end up with a smaller onion. Sometimes it's best just to take what seems to be.

There is more, but does that go some way to dome of it?

---

(November 18, 2013 at 9:00 am)Esquilax Wrote:

(November 18, 2013 at 8:23 am)Jacob(smooth) Wrote: You're not stirring the shit at all. We're just talking.

Good.

Quote:And yes, I've constructed my own version of Christianity. I've cherry picked, redacted, reinterpreted and selectively edited it to fit the small space between my ears, my preformed world view and my personal morality. And you know what? I think each and every Christian has done the same. Otherwise, logically, we would all share the same views on everything. And we so palpably don't! You think there are arguments here, you should see what goes down in the private bits of Christian forums!

Aren't you concerned that you might be misinterpreting, though? I'm not one for Pascal's Wager, but if I did end up believing in a god, I probably wouldn't be so blase about avoiding his wrath.

Quote:As to what's the point? Because it helps me to cope with life. It brings me pleasure and comfort and saves me examining hard truths too closely.

Sounds more like a worldview than a religion to me. Then again, I'm not gonna presume to tell you what you are; you're more open about it than most, which is way refreshing, anyway.

Ah, I learned a thing about pascal's wager on this very forum. As you know, Everyone takes it. There is no low risk proposition. I may be misinterpreting HOWEVER I interpret. So I might as well take an interpretation which seems right to me. At least if I do end up in hell for it it will be a "fair cop". If I take the bible as literal and THAT turns out wrong I go to hell for shit I didn't really want to do!!

What should be asked, what can cool people do for me

@ Jacob-

To be straight, I don't give a fig what you believe as long as you're not pushing it on others. Whatever gets you through the day. But it IS curious to me that you have this mindset, and I'm glad you're willing to explore it in conversation.

Love is a real biochemical phenomenon. Studying it doesn't reduce its power in our lives one whit. I have never seen facing truths like this one- that love is a measurable product of evolutionary mechanism- to be reductive in the slightest. How does that take anything away from the experience of your children's love (if you feel your wife is only with you because she can't do any better, then I can't help you with that one)? Understanding reality always makes life better, IMO. I love the title of Dawkins' book for children- The Magic of Reality.

So I'm still not clear on the purpose of the masking fiction (or possible fiction), since this analogy doesn't work for me. Whatever the origin of your children's love for you, it's there and it's wonderful. If they love you because god makes them do that, that's hardly more ennobling (it makes them seem like puppets). Not thinking too hard about its physiological basis doesn't make it less real. It still seems to me that you're knowingly and deliberately choosing comforting lies to avoid dealing with things that make you feel uncomfortable.