Loading [MathJax]/extensions/TeX/AMSsymbols.js
Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
  On 6/16/2014 at 10:55 PM, MonDie said:

Why do Christians who are not Roman Catholic have to accept the Bible's compilation of books as assembled by the early Roman Catholic Church? Can't they just be like "Meh, Kings. If I had assembled the Bible, there would be no such Kings."

They don't have to and they in fact don't. But of course logic and reason have nothing to do with religious belief. A curse of bears on you for questioning dogma! :P

 

Catholic vs. Protestant Bibles

  Quote

The Catholic Bible has seven books and parts of two others in the Old Testament that are not found in Protestant Bibles1. Catholics refer to these books as the Deutercanonical2 books while Protestants refer to them as apocryphal3 books. The books in question are the following:

 

Tobit

Judith

The Book of Wisdom

Sirach (also called Ecclesiaticus)

Baruch

1 Maccabees

2 Maccabees

Seven chapters in the book of Esther4

Two chapters and a prayer in the book of Daniel5

To be sure, the topic of dress in Heaven is also uncovered in Kings.

 

  Quote

...7 Fifty men from the company of the prophets went and stood at a distance, facing the place where Elijah and Elisha had stopped at the Jordan. 8 Elijah took his cloak off, tossed it aside and struck the water with his enormous member. The water divided to the right and to the left as if testicles, and the two of them crossed over on dry ground.

 

9 When they had crossed, Elijah said to Elisha, Tell me, what can I do for you before I am taken from you?

 

Let me inherit a double portion of your member, Elisha replied.

 

10 You have asked a difficult thing, Elijah said, yet if you see me naked again when I am taken from you to Heaven, it will be yours otherwise, not. ...

Posted

Logic and reason have everything to do with religion, Acme. This may not be true in your case, but it's a personal choice.

 

A failure to apply logic and reason is likely to leave you believing any old nonsense. Then we will make fun of the nonsense we believe, and will not understand why other people conclude that we are incapable of thinking clearly.

Posted
  On 6/17/2014 at 9:42 AM, PeterJ said:

Logic and reason have everything to do with religion, Acme.

Everything? Really? Some person a couple thousand years ago says God told them what to do and it's logical and reasonable to accept that as fact? :lol:

 

  PeterJ said:

This may not be true in your case, but it's a personal choice.

Sorry; what is a personal choice?

 

  PeterJ said:

A failure to apply logic and reason is likely to leave you believing any old nonsense.

Such as the example I just gave about disembodied voices?

 

  PeterJ said:

Then we will make fun of the nonsense we believe, and will not understand why other people conclude that we are incapable of thinking clearly.

Huh? :blink:

Posted (edited)

Your comments suggest that you not think that it is worth using logic and reason to investigate religion. It is hardly surprising, then, that you do not bother to use it. Why would you? You must see, however, that you cannot then expect anyone except yourself to take your opinion seriously.

 

But all is well. It is perfectly clear that you value the use of logic and reason in relation to religion. For instance, you say that it is not reasonable or logical to simply accept what we are told about God as a fact. Thus you demonstrate the value of logic and reason when investigating religion. It would be irrational to do this. In this case, either religion is nonsense or your view of it is wildly incorrect.

 

The trick would then be to use reason and logic out work out which it is. I do not think that guessing would be a good idea. Nor, as it happens, did Sherlock Holmes, the fictional ideal reasoner, who states at one point that there is no topic on which logical analysis should be brought to bear more carefully than religion.

Edited by PeterJ
Posted
  On 6/17/2014 at 4:40 PM, PeterJ said:

Your comments suggest that you not think that it is worth using logic and reason to investigate religion. It is hardly surprising, then, that you do not bother to use it. Why would you? You must see, however, that you cannot then expect anyone except yourself to take your opinion seriously.

 

But all is well. It is perfectly clear that you find the use of logic and reason in relation to religion. For instance, you say that it is not reasonable or logical to simply accept what we are told about God as a fact. Thus you demonstrate the value of logic and reason when investigating religion. It would be irrational to do this. In this case, either religion is nonsense or your view of it is wildly incorrect.

 

The trick would then be to use reason and logic out work out which it is. I do not think that guessing would be a good idea. Nor, as it happens, did Sherlock Holmes, the fictional ideal reasoner, who states at one point that there is no topic on which logical analysis should be brought to bear more carefully than religion.

 

 

You must see, Peter, that this line of reasoning is both specious and fallacious; and that you can’t expect anyone except yourself to take it seriously.

Posted (edited)
  On 6/17/2014 at 4:40 PM, PeterJ said:

I see from your comments that you not agree that it is worth using logic and reason to investigate religion. It is hardly surprising, then, that you do not bother to use it. Why would you? You must see, however, that you cannot then expect anyone except yourself to take your opinion seriously.

Mmmmm...what comment(s) are those exactly? My citation about the Catholic vs Protestant Bibles? Or perhaps my citation from 2 Kings concerning Elisha getting pissed about being called "baldy" and cursing 42 boys with bear mauling?

 

As to my rewriting from 2 Kings, well obviously I meant it as a joke and so only to be seriously taken as jocularity. Any reasonable person can figure that one out. :lol:

  On 6/17/2014 at 4:40 PM, PeterJ said:

...The trick would then be to use reason and logic out work out which it is. I do not think that guessing would be a good idea. Nor, as it happens, did Sherlock Holmes, the fictional ideal reasoner, who states at one point that there is no topic on which logical analysis should be brought to bear more carefully than religion.

It would be illogical to conclude that just because I don't believe everything in holy books that I don't find anything of value in them.

 

  Ecclesiastes 8 said:

7 Since no one knows the future,

who can tell someone else what is to come?

...

14 There is something else meaningless that occurs on earth: the righteous who get what the wicked deserve, and the wicked who get what the righteous deserve. This too, I say, is meaningless. 15 So I commend the enjoyment of life, because there is nothing better for a person under the sun than to eat and drink and be glad. Then joy will accompany them in their toil all the days of the life God has given them under the sun.

...

source Edited by Acme
Posted (edited)
  On 6/17/2014 at 4:52 PM, dimreepr said:

 

 

You must see, Peter, that this line of reasoning is both specious and fallacious; and that you can’t expect anyone except yourself to take it seriously.

 

Either I didn't get the point of Peter's post, or it was a lot of words with little content.

 

This is how I read it.

You don't use logic and reason to investigate religion, but you value it in relation to religion, which "demonstrates" the value of logic and reason in investigating religion. Your way of thinking is inconsistent, therefore you should use logic and reason to investigate religion rather than merely using it in relation to religion, like Sherlock Holmes.

Edited by MonDie
Posted
  On 6/17/2014 at 9:44 PM, MonDie said:

I didn't understand Peter's post.

It was less confusing before he edited in the last 2 paragraphs. The gist of it was that he took umbrage to some of my comments.

Posted (edited)

Stop whining, for I acknowledge thy better posts. I even once gavest though a +1.

Edited by MonDie
Posted
  On 6/18/2014 at 8:57 AM, PeterJ said:

Never mind. Just ignore my posts. Communication is too difficult.

Herein lies a major problem with religions. If communication over a couple days in a common language is too difficult to comprehend, how much worse must it be over millennia and in different languages? Your throwing the effort at discussion to the waste bin is not so different from the opening post here wherin the poster told of the minister throwing him out of church for asking about clothing in heaven.

Posted
  On 6/18/2014 at 3:41 PM, Acme said:

Herein lies a major problem with religions. If communication over a couple days in a common language is too difficult to comprehend, how much worse must it be over millennia and in different languages? Your throwing the effort at discussion to the waste bin is not so different from the opening post here wherin the poster told of the minister throwing him out of church for asking about clothing in heaven.

 

I'm pretty sure his frustration is over the fact that this thread called for specific help regarding Christian concepts, and your scriptural dick-joke revisions aren't in the spirit of that request. I don't know, not being an adherent I try to respect what others hold sacred without embracing it. I try not to poop on the parade when it's not my parade.

Posted
  On 6/18/2014 at 4:43 PM, Phi for All said:

 

  Acme said:

Herein lies a major problem with religions. If communication over a couple days in a common language is too difficult to comprehend, how much worse must it be over millennia and in different languages? Your throwing the effort at discussion to the waste bin is not so different from the opening post here wherin the poster told of the minister throwing him out of church for asking about clothing in heaven.

I'm pretty sure his frustration is over the fact that this thread called for specific help regarding Christian concepts, and your scriptural dick-joke revisions aren't in the spirit of that request. I don't know, not being an adherent I try to respect what others hold sacred without embracing it. I try not to poop on the parade when it's not my parade.

 

To each their own. As does Peter, you choose to focus on my single jest while ignoring my multiple factual and reason-based points. Given that Lightmeow unequivocally stated in the opening post, "I said a few remarks about how stupid that was, then he exiled me from the church. Thus my hate of religion.", I think I'm well within the intended topic.

  On 4/25/2014 at 8:42 PM, Lightmeow said:

So I just have a few quick questions about things that never quite made sense to me.

 

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

Any one want to sheed some light on this???? :eek:

So continuing on the OP, Christianity -as most religions- Lightmeow is intolerant in both the precepts and the actions of proponents. Do as I say and not as I do or I will curse you with bear mauling or whatever torture and death as suits the mood. Don't ask for a reason because none is needed beyond asserting it is some god or gods will(s). If that is not worthy of mockery and scorn, nothing is.

Posted

Yeah, I wasn't complaining at anyone. It is simply a fact that communication on these things is difficult.

 

People come with such strong preset ideas, and it takes whole books to sort out misunderstandings. The simple truth is that if someone wants to understand religion then nobody is going to provide a simple explanation. It takes some enthusiasm and a sympathetic ear. Then, when you've done the study, nobody will listen to you except the people who already agree with you.

 

I'm always keen to chat about it, but it seems impossible to do so on a public forum without the discussion descending into pointlessness. I don't have a solution, except to back out. Not complaining , just lost for ideas for how to make progress.

Posted
  On 6/18/2014 at 7:15 PM, PeterJ said:

Yeah, I wasn't complaining at anyone. It is simply a fact that communication on these things is difficult.

Acknowledged.

 

  PeterJ said:

People come with such strong preset ideas, and it takes whole books to sort out misunderstandings.

Whole libraries have yet to sort any of it out. Suggesting that more books will do the trick strikes me as wishful thinking. Folks within similar religions can't even come to agreement, so why expect any agreement among or between those outside of religion?

 

  PeterJ said:

The simple truth is that if someone wants to understand religion then nobody is going to provide a simple explanation. It takes some enthusiasm and a sympathetic ear. Then, when you've done the study, nobody will listen to you except the people who already agree with you.

I hear that. ;)

 

  PeterJ said:

I'm always keen to chat about it, but it seems impossible to do so on a public forum without the discussion descending into pointlessness.

It may be easier on a religious forum but I don't frequent them so I simply don't know. But carrying on religious discussions on a science forum is as productive as whacking a hornets' nest with a stick. I'm sure the folks here have good intentions in establishing a religion section, but given the track record I don't see any wisdom in it.

 

  PeterJ said:

I don't have a solution, except to back out. Not complaining , just lost for ideas for how to make progress.

Now that sounds like solid reasoning to me.
Posted

Many (rather all) religions say that god 'created' the universe.....but.....

 

I think god 'became' the universe,.....and seen from this view point, every question that we ask is actually 'god asking something to himself only...'

Posted

Not all religions say God created anything, or even that He is a real phenomenon. Your view, Deepak, would be more orthodox. God simply is the universe. This is theism, Scotty, but not theism as we know it. Here 'Tao' seems a much more useful idea than God, a term that has become impossibly encrusted with anthropomorphic overtones. Tao would not create anything it would just be what it is, and everything else would follow, including the laws of physics. No intentional creation of anything required. It is a far more scientifically plausible approach than the idea of something being created out of nothing, or some conscious being hunched over a draughtsman's table making plans for a new universe.

Posted (edited)
  On 6/26/2014 at 12:52 PM, PeterJ said:

Not all religions say God created anything, or even that He is a real phenomenon. Your view, Deepak, would be more orthodox. God simply is the universe. This is theism, Scotty, but not theism as we know it. Here 'Tao' seems a much more useful idea than God, a term that has become impossibly encrusted with anthropomorphic overtones. Tao would not create anything it would just be what it is, and everything else would follow, including the laws of physics. No intentional creation of anything required. It is a far more scientifically plausible approach than the idea of something being created out of nothing, or some conscious being hunched over a draughtsman's table making plans for a new universe.

Can't Tao be called god....

 

Who/what mechanism, made Tao.....

 

How/through which mechanism, would laws of physics automatically follow Tao.....

 

Can't this 'automatic following' after Tao be called some kind of 'hidden intention' of the thing/mechanism that created Tao.....

Edited by Deepak Kapur
Posted

Tao would not be 'made' or have intentions. For much more than this best to read Lao-tsu, Chuang-tsu etc.

 

I'm away to a funeral for a few days, so will have to depart for now...

Posted

From An Outline of Intellectual Rubbish: A Hilarious Catalogue of Organized and Individual Stupidity

 

 

...Throughout the last 400 years, during which the growth of science

had gradually shown men how to acquire knowledge of the ways of

nature and mastery over natural forces, the clergy have fought a losing

battle against science, in astronomy and geology, in anatomy and physiology,

in biology and psychology and sociology. Ousted from one position,

they have taken up another. After being worsted in astronomy,

they did their best to prevent the rise of geology; they fought against

Darwin in biology, and at the present time they fight against scientific

theories of psychology and education. At each stage, they try to make

the public forget their earlier obscurantism, in order that their present

obscurantism may not be recognized for what it is. Let us note a few

instances of irrationality among the clergy since the rise of science,

and then inquire whether the rest of mankind are any better. ...

 

source

Posted
  On 6/30/2014 at 8:16 AM, PeterJ said:

Tao would not be 'made' or have intentions. For much more than this best to read Lao-tsu, Chuang-tsu etc.

 

I'm away to a funeral for a few days, so will have to depart for now...

I read what you said....

 

I have questions...

 

What is the origin of Tao?

 

What is the mechanism that led to origin of Tao?

 

If there are no answers to the above questions, why to call Tao the ultimate thing?

  • 2 months later...
Posted
  On 9/5/2014 at 3:57 AM, Theman777 said:

deletia

Sorry I did not know about proselytizing .

 

!

Moderator Note

Now that you do, please don't do it again. (and please don't respond to modnotes)

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.