Truth in a story which is entirely dependent upon subjective interpretation

[Godscreated]

 Christian proposition is that, the omniscient and omnipotent creator of the universe has this message, that unless we believe it, we are destined for eternal torture, or annihilation, or whatever you believe happens to us nonbelievers (another major discrepancy between different sects) after we die.

We all agree that all nonbelievers want be living in harmony with God in heaven or anywhere else. So what does it matter if we disaree on the exact way of punishment, we agree that there will be a sever punishment for the nonbeliever. Seems to me we agree on the principles of the matter.
GC

[robvalue]

I also find it amazing how things like this don't bother people more.

Unfortunately, they seem to work backwards from their conclusion.

"My religion must be right, and this must all make sense. So whatever reasons I come up with to account for the apparent problems, they must be valid."

It seems clear to me that (indulging the fantasy) God either can't or won't communicate effectively with us. The former leaves him rather less impressive than generally claimed; the latter makes him a trickster at best and a sadist at worst, considering the amount of bloodshed and suffering the resulting confusion causes.

[chimp3]

You know what's amazing? If we stopped teaching children to talk, all over the world, in a single generation all of humanity will have forgotten all about all concepts of god (at least as established) and will need to learn to do everything all over again from scratch. Why would god build this defect into his creation so that a massive event that would kill off adults (like that one episode of Star Trek) might leave children stranded in this way and make them go feral, if he supposedly has built knowledge of him into our hearts and has a flawless ability to communicate if he chose to? Surely if feral children with no spoken language of any kind could still be made to understand divine language. Any theists want to touch this point?

Actually , they would start a cult waiting for the return of Captain Walker.

---

 Christian proposition is that, the omniscient and omnipotent creator of the universe has this message, that unless we believe it, we are destined for eternal torture, or annihilation, or whatever you believe happens to us nonbelievers (another major discrepancy between different sects) after we die.

We all agree that all nonbelievers want be living in harmony with God in heaven or anywhere else. So what does it matter if we disaree on the exact way of punishment, we agree that there will be a sever punishment for the nonbeliever. Seems to me we agree on the principles of the matter.
GC

You need to talk to CL about this punishment thing.

[robvalue]

Severe punishments for the non-believer?

What a perfect way to sum up all that is wrong with religion. And especially completely and utterly stupid, since as I keep saying, belief is not a choice. Even if I did "believe in Jesus", I'd tell him to fuck off anyway. I don't want anything to do with this holding hostage of souls by emotional blackmail.

Once we look outside of Christianity, we have other groups of people so badly misinterpreting God's communication that they come up with a whole new religion, or even a whole new God. That means God is possibly the worst communicator ever.

[Godscreated]

We all agree that all nonbelievers want be living in harmony with God in heaven or anywhere else. So what does it matter if we disaree on the exact way of punishment, we agree that there will be a sever punishment for the nonbeliever. Seems to me we agree on the principles of the matter.
GC

You need to talk to CL about this punishment thing.

CL and I disagree on more than this one point but I want change my mind and go against what the scriptures teach. The scriptures of God's word are what's being discussed not any outside sources. The Bible is the only source of authority for the Christian. My view of what hell will be like is different than that of most Christians, I make no claim that I'm absolutely correct but, biblical it makes sense for me and it doesn't change the fact there is an eternal punishment for all unbelievers.

GC

[RoadRunner79]

I seriously don't get this. To make the claim that there is any truth, let alone the 'only', and absolute, undisputed truth, and yet having thousands of denominations disagreeing on every possible opinion (and justifiably so since it contradicts itself so much), how do people answer this? I've not seen a response on youtube and I don't know if a primarily atheist forum is a good place to get an answer, but I'd sure like to know. I mean, that's just the tip of the iceberg really. What passages are metaphorical and which literal? And how would one tell the difference? It seems like an impossible mess. Is this just another situation where it's ignored or some really bottom-of-the-barrel-scraping answer is all we get?

Isn't everything entirely up to subjective interpretation?  Especially, this seems to be the nature of language, that I have to interpret the meaning behind what you are saying.  Likewise, I can do so; trying to be accurate to your intentions, or I can interpret with the intent to distort your view.  Are you saying, that there isn't a difference?

I normally find the focus on the different denominations and disagreements, to be overblown, and taken out of context for dramatic effect.  I had a friend who was Eastern Orthodox, and while there are a couple of major differences (which are not really concerning the bible) normally, when discussing like rational adults, even what may seem like a major difference was normally not as drastic as first appeared (a lot of times it had to do with wording and differences in approaching the topic; not in substance).  The question I always ask in these situations, is why do you come to that conclusion?  Sometimes, you will find that they are basing their conclusion on something completely different.  Also; atheist I have noticed, often seem to boastfully and pridefully proclaim that they do not all hold the same values and conclusions (do not all agree).  So if we followed your logic in this question/statement, then they are no closer to an objective view of reality in this matter.

As to metaphorical or literal, I think this is a part of language.  There are ways to tell if something is metaphorical or literal (or perhaps I am missing the boat here).  I would agree, that parts of the Bible are unclear (there are parts, such as in Revelations; that I am not entirely sure of or dogmatic on their meaning).  There are also many parts, that are quite direct and literal.  I believe that someone else had said something to the effect, that the Bible is not primarily a manual (although it does contain instructions).  I also think that there are reasons, that some things are less clear.

[Astonished]

I seriously don't get this. To make the claim that there is any truth, let alone the 'only', and absolute, undisputed truth, and yet having thousands of denominations disagreeing on every possible opinion (and justifiably so since it contradicts itself so much), how do people answer this? I've not seen a response on youtube and I don't know if a primarily atheist forum is a good place to get an answer, but I'd sure like to know. I mean, that's just the tip of the iceberg really. What passages are metaphorical and which literal? And how would one tell the difference? It seems like an impossible mess. Is this just another situation where it's ignored or some really bottom-of-the-barrel-scraping answer is all we get?

Isn't everything entirely up to subjective interpretation?  Especially, this seems to be the nature of language, that I have to interpret the meaning behind what you are saying.  Likewise, I can do so; trying to be accurate to your intentions, or I can interpret with the intent to distort your view.  Are you saying, that there isn't a difference?

I normally find the focus on the different denominations and disagreements, to be overblown, and taken out of context for dramatic effect.  I had a friend who was Eastern Orthodox, and while there are a couple of major differences (which are not really concerning the bible) normally, when discussing like rational adults, even what may seem like a major difference was normally not as drastic as first appeared (a lot of times it had to do with wording and differences in approaching the topic; not in substance).  The question I always ask in these situations, is why do you come to that conclusion?  Sometimes, you will find that they are basing their conclusion on something completely different.  Also; atheist I have noticed, often seem to boastfully and pridefully proclaim that they do not all hold the same values and conclusions (do not all agree).  So if we followed your logic in this question/statement, then they are no closer to an objective view of reality in this matter.

As to metaphorical or literal, I think this is a part of language.  There are ways to tell if something is metaphorical or literal (or perhaps I am missing the boat here).  I would agree, that parts of the Bible are unclear (there are parts, such as in Revelations; that I am not entirely sure of or dogmatic on their meaning).  There are also many parts, that are quite direct and literal.  I believe that someone else had said something to the effect, that the Bible is not primarily a manual (although it does contain instructions).  I also think that there are reasons, that some things are less clear.

Tl:dr, but I will address the parts that are nonsensical to me in your post.

First, don't try to cop out with 'everything it subjective', I'm so fucking sick of god getting out of jail free with EVERY damn thing. Mathematics is not subjective. We need never address this horseshit argument again.

And if you can't get a consensus of believers to say 'yes, this is clearly literal' or 'well, this here is obviously just a metaphor' about every point of contention in the bible, don't even bother trying to tell anyone you have the correct interpretation of which parts are which. This is the entire point of my thread, because you have no certain criteria for determining which parts are to be interpreted in what ways, and if I interpreted it the way I see it, no one is a true Christian if they're not stoning me and every other nonbeliever for heresy. That part, I take pretty fucking literally.

[brewer]

Isn't everything entirely up to subjective interpretation? 

[edit]

I'm gonna have to remember this one. Thanks.

[RoadRunner79]

Isn't everything entirely up to subjective interpretation? 

[edit]

I'm gonna have to remember this one. Thanks.

Yes, everything has a subjective interpretation, but you can have a subjective interpretation about something which is objective.  In which case, that interpretation is judged based on how well it matches the objective thing that it represents.  

The point being, that disagreements, do not mean that it is subjective by nature, or that there isn't any truth.   I would think that pointing to disagreements within the theory of evolution, to mean that evolution was false, to be a pretty weak argument.  At best, you can evaluate the different claims based on the evidence, and possibly say that the claim in question isn't as clear as perhaps thought.  But to use it as a argument against the whole, I don't think is very good.

[Edwardo Piet]

Theism is depressing. So glad there's no god. How incredibly unromantic and childish it would be if our purpose was really to serve someone who made us.

The beauty of nature. Now that's romance.