[Polpolion]

Yeah, you said a bunch of stuff about how the bible doesn't correctly portray Christianity and Judaism. That's bull****. Those religions are based on nothing BUT the bible. The bible says there's a god and he wants us to behave. That's it. And then some people take it way too far and some people go "oh, but some of the stuff in the bible still applies, so that's the only stuff that counts. everything else is just metaphor."

I have yet to meet a single person in real life that takes the Bible literally. Even priests and bishops. For some reason, you just don't seem to like the idea that people are reasonable. From what I can tell, the main reason that you don't like religion is that you expect people to accept either all of it or none of it literally, and permanently. That is a completely ridiculous notion. Look at physics, for example. Aristotle had some good ideas, and they lasted for about two thousand years. Then came Newton, and the system of physics was completely changed. Aristotle's observations weren't nullified, but his conclusions were. If people behaved the way you seem to want them to, then we'd still be working with Aristotelian physics.

Given that, it would seem as though I've shown that it is quite possible that the views and values of Judaism and Christianity are not bound to the bible by a chain.

Morals are completely arbitrary. They depend on the culture and the time period. Some last longer than others, some are more widespread than others.

Morals are not completely arbitrary, and they're not subjective. A cult's mass killing, while supposedly good for them, is still bad. The holocaust is still bad. The crusades were still bad. Or so we assume. People's morals can be correct or incorrect, if not, then it's nearly impossible to set up a truly just system of laws, because it would need to conform to all beliefs, many of which would be paradoxical.

Either way, enjoy your moral relativism.

"Don't be a dick" doesn't have to be a message from god. Cooperation is extremely useful to the continuation of our species. That's why most of us are somewhat altruistic. Period.

I never said it was a message from God. Let's say that God did not say it. Does that mean it is necessarily less valid? No. Let's say that God did say it. Does that make it necessarily and more valid? No. Let's say that God never mentioned it. Does that necessarily change it's validity at all? No.

[iamzack]

Religions are made up. Physics isn't. So I would expect religion to just stay the same, yes. Religion tends to just follow our trends, but slowly.

Morals are defined by the majority and the perspective. That's just fact. We thought it was moral to enslave people, and now we don't. Was slavery always immoral? Tch. Ask the bible.

"Don't be a dick" doesn't have to be a message from god. Cooperation is extremely useful to the continuation of our species. That's why most of us are somewhat altruistic. Period.

I never said it was a message from God. Let's say that God did not say it. Does that mean it is necessarily less valid? No. Let's say that God did say it. Does that make it necessarily and more valid? No. Let's say that God never mentioned it. Does that necessarily change it's validity at all? No.

My point was that morality can exist without a god telling us to behave. That's pretty much the main argument for any religion or the bible or whatever. "It's a set of moral standards."

[The E]

Just a quick note here: Physics (Just like Mathematics and Logic) is also made up. Just because it works doesn't mean it's true.

[iamzack]

Well, okay then. It's all completely made up.

Physics and math get to join religion in the bull**** camp.

I'm not picky about what goes in there anymore.

[Polpolion]

Religions are made up. Physics isn't. So I would expect religion to just stay the same, yes. Religion tends to just follow our trends, but slowly.

Actually, religion is no more made up than any rationalistic physics theories. It's just that as time went on, physics theories became supported a posteriori. Logically speaking, it's possible for God to be as real as gravity.

Morals are defined by the majority and the perspective. That's just fact. We thought it was moral to enslave people, and now we don't. Was slavery always immoral? Tch. Ask the bible.

But it wasn't okay to enslave people then. Or ever. Why on Earth do you think we stopped? If it was okay when the majority thought it was right, then why would anyone ever say it's wrong? By you're logic, slavery is okay. By your logic, there is no reason for people to ever change their values, because they are always right.

And why do you keep trying to use the Bible as support in the sense that you are? Didn't I say that it's not an accurate moral assessment? Or did you not read that part of my posts either?

I never said it was a message from God. Let's say that God did not say it. Does that mean it is necessarily less valid? No. Let's say that God did say it. Does that make it necessarily and more valid? No. Let's say that God never mentioned it. Does that necessarily change it's validity at all? No.

My point was that morality can exist without a god telling us to behave. That's pretty much the main argument for any religion or the bible or whatever. "It's a set of moral standards."

What the hell are you talking about? It is "pretty much" the main argument of religion ("or the bible or whatever") arguing what? Religions do set a moral standard. A Utilitarian moral standard. That standard exists even without God, so I fail to understand the point you're trying to make here, which isn't surprising since you didn't finish typing.

[iamzack]

Okay, well here's some that's not decided and in the past: is abortion moral or immoral? homosexuality?

Morality changes. Religion is whatever's popular morally.

Also, why keep the bible around as a religious text if it's not a religious text?

[Polpolion]

Okay, well here's some that's not decided and in the past: is abortion moral or immoral? homosexuality?

Morality changes. Religion is whatever's popular morally.

No, morality does not change. Everyone's morals are based upon what they know at the time, it's just they never say "as far as I know." People's religious views and ethical views differ because they know different information.

If a girl gets raped and has an abortion, it isn't morally acceptable and unacceptable because that's a paradox. Paradoxes cannot exist, if you haven't noticed. Someone's view is wrong, whether it be the conservative or the liberal, no one knows with 100% certainty.

Also, why keep the bible around as a religious text if it's not a religious text?

Because if read correctly, it's relevant. Very relevant. Possibly untrue, but relevant nonetheless. Most people pick and choose what they believe from, them interpreting the contents of the bible differently from many other people (knowing different information).

The reason that many people believe different things with "same" information is because they can interpret it differently (it essentially becomes different information) or they know that information with variable degrees of certainty.

[iamzack]

If read correctly, anything is relevant.

I'm going to have to quit now. I'll try again when I've taken my meds. Stupid meds. >.<

[Polpolion]

If read correctly, anything is relevant.

Most people can sort out what's "reasonable" from what's not (Reasonable being actual ideas, ie the bible Torah, Qur'an, unreasonable being random books, ie a cookbook, which is hardly a philosophical work). Past that, it's a combination of tradition and publicity that keeps the Bible so popular.

[Ford Prefect]

So what? Philosophy is nice to study and all, in the context of its history, but it's ridiculous to worship it.

Religious philosophers are participants in the traditions they study, so their efforts come out of a perceived genuine stake in their implications. St. Augustine wasn't just a bystander; he helped to found Western Christianity. Contemporary Christianity owes its understanding of Original Sin largely to him. And it's not just the hermeneutical tradition-- Christian ritual is filled with extra-canonical texts written long after biblical times, including some of the most famous ones, like Te Deum and Dies Irae.

[TrashMan]

The bible begs to differ.

Haven't noticed really. Name a good individual that is confirmed to have landed in hell.

Let him try. There are plenty of examples of the New Testament saying it too.

Oh? Name them.
Things like what?
Like "no one comes before then Father unless trough me" (or something like that)? Open to interpretation.
See, Jesus opened the door to the Father (Heaven). He keeps them open. Anyone who passes trough does so trough him, cause he keeps them open. For everyone.

[Ghostavo]

Morals are defined by the majority and the perspective. That's just fact. We thought it was moral to enslave people, and now we don't. Was slavery always immoral? Tch. Ask the bible.

But it wasn't okay to enslave people then. Or ever. Why on Earth do you think we stopped? If it was okay when the majority thought it was right, then why would anyone ever say it's wrong? By you're logic, slavery is okay. By your logic, there is no reason for people to ever change their values, because they are always right.

Actually, it is by your logic that those things would happen. If moral reasoning is truly objective (as in, there exists one true morality), there would be no reason for people to change their values, because as you said, they would be always right.

Each generation changes it's moral code ever so slightly (if in need of evidence, look at the 60's and 70's) giving birth to new values, and so new generations thought slavery was not okay anymore. Sure, it's fun to look back centuries and criticize ancient moral codes, but how can you be sure we are not the ones criticized centuries from now on issues we don't even think about because we find them to be acceptable?

[iamzack]

Like "no one comes before then Father unless trough me" (or something like that)? Open to interpretation.

I interpret that to mean you have to kill Jesus to get into heaven. I guess we're all ****ed. Join my religion, because if you do (and you pay my church enough) I may be able to get you there through other means....

[karajorma]

Let him try. There are plenty of examples of the New Testament saying it too.

Oh? Name them.
Things like what?
Like "no one comes before then Father unless trough me" (or something like that)? Open to interpretation.
See, Jesus opened the door to the Father (Heaven). He keeps them open. Anyone who passes trough does so trough him, cause he keeps them open. For everyone.

Since you insist on making me prove I know your holy book better than you do.

Matthew 13:41
    The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Matthew 18:8
    If thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire.
 
  And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire.

Matthew 25:41, 46
    Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels. ... And these shall go away into everlasting punishment.

Luke 16:22-24
    And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried; And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.

John 5:28-29
    The hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

2 Thessalonians 1:8-9
    In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction.

Revelation 14:10-11
    The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever.

Revelation 20:14-15
20:13  And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

Mark 3:29 
 But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation.

Mark 16:16 
 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

And that's just from 10 minutes searching and only including the quotes involving damnation or eternal fire. There are a hell of a lot more that just imply it.

[peterv]

John's Apocalypse (Revelation) once became the subject in a discussion between me, a few other students and an Othodox archbishop. The holy father ended by saying that this particular book is not yet officially explained by the Church.
What i think is that from those early years, people like the apostles tried hard to destroy all the beauty of the Cristian message.

[Polpolion]

Morals are defined by the majority and the perspective. That's just fact. We thought it was moral to enslave people, and now we don't. Was slavery always immoral? Tch. Ask the bible.

But it wasn't okay to enslave people then. Or ever. Why on Earth do you think we stopped? If it was okay when the majority thought it was right, then why would anyone ever say it's wrong? By you're logic, slavery is okay. By your logic, there is no reason for people to ever change their values, because they are always right.

Actually, it is by your logic that those things would happen. If moral reasoning is truly objective (as in, there exists one true morality), there would be no reason for people to change their values, because as you said, they would be always right.

But that's assuming that people can get the correct moral values right off the bat, which I really don't think is the case. Just look at physics. We understand it pretty well now, but we sure don't fully understand it. And physics is relatively tangible.

[Ghostavo]

Morals are defined by the majority and the perspective. That's just fact. We thought it was moral to enslave people, and now we don't. Was slavery always immoral? Tch. Ask the bible.

But it wasn't okay to enslave people then. Or ever. Why on Earth do you think we stopped? If it was okay when the majority thought it was right, then why would anyone ever say it's wrong? By you're logic, slavery is okay. By your logic, there is no reason for people to ever change their values, because they are always right.

Actually, it is by your logic that those things would happen. If moral reasoning is truly objective (as in, there exists one true morality), there would be no reason for people to change their values, because as you said, they would be always right.

But that's assuming that people can get the correct moral values right off the bat, which I really don't think is the case. Just look at physics. We understand it pretty well now, but we sure don't fully understand it. And physics is relatively tangible.

Then why assume there is a correct or true moral value? What reference do you use to compare it with? In physics you can experiment and see if the theory fits with reality. No such thing can be done with moral values without resorting to an absolute moral value (for example, for theists, god), which would pretty much defeat the purpose of having any other moral values.

[Mika]

Well, okay then. It's all completely made up.

Physics and math get to join religion in the bull**** camp.

I'm not picky about what goes in there anymore.

 

This one belongs into the Top 5 of funny things that I saw today.

Mika

[TrashMan]

Since you insist on making me prove I know your holy book better than you do.

And that's just from 10 minutes searching and only including the quotes involving damnation or eternal fire. There are a hell of a lot more that just imply it.

Did you even bother reading what you posted?
Half of them can be interpreted the way I said (offend doesn't have to mean "not believe". All who do evil offend God) and the other half actually sez exactly what I said.

Luke 16:22-24
    And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried; And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.

- the rich man was evil and without compassion

John 5:28-29
    The hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

- good go to heaven, evil to hell.

Revelation 20:14-15
20:13  And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

- again, judged according to their deeds

Mark 3:29 
 But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation.

- you might want to inquire what exactly is "blasphemy against the Holy Ghost". To put it simply, those are grevious sins for which someone would generally get life of death penalty.


Not to say that there aren't any quotes from the Bible that are more murky, but the nature of God is clear. He is a just God. That is all that matters.

[Polpolion]

Morals are defined by the majority and the perspective. That's just fact. We thought it was moral to enslave people, and now we don't. Was slavery always immoral? Tch. Ask the bible.

But it wasn't okay to enslave people then. Or ever. Why on Earth do you think we stopped? If it was okay when the majority thought it was right, then why would anyone ever say it's wrong? By you're logic, slavery is okay. By your logic, there is no reason for people to ever change their values, because they are always right.

Actually, it is by your logic that those things would happen. If moral reasoning is truly objective (as in, there exists one true morality), there would be no reason for people to change their values, because as you said, they would be always right.

But that's assuming that people can get the correct moral values right off the bat, which I really don't think is the case. Just look at physics. We understand it pretty well now, but we sure don't fully understand it. And physics is relatively tangible.

Then why assume there is a correct or true moral value? What reference do you use to compare it with? In physics you can experiment and see if the theory fits with reality. No such thing can be done with moral values without resorting to an absolute moral value (for example, for theists, god), which would pretty much defeat the purpose of having any other moral values.

If you want to speak practically, why not be a nihilist? Just because you can't find a reference point to compare your morals to does not mean that A) there isn't one or B) there's no true morals. Thousands of years ago, I doubt people would have been able to count the number of atoms, most people probably couldn't fathom such things.