Questioning the Old Testament, Demiurge, Counsels, etc

originally posted by: StalkerSolent

And rapists. Collectively, as a culture.

Sure, they exist in more places than S&G. With what stalkers/sexual predators do and are capable of these days, I think they put whatever S&G were guilty of to shame.

How are you separating "natural cause" from "God" here?

In the bible, the passage is spelled out like god literally sent destruction to Sodom and Gomorrah for their sins as opposed to the cities just happening to be in the path of some particularly nasty weather systems (for example: New Orleans and Katrina).

Again, what high pedestal do you stand on to proclaim how the universe should be run? I mean, gosh, that's awfully arrogant, even for my tastes

I'm just arguing logically here based on known scientific processes and time scales. That's all. Remember, I don't even necessarily believe that a god exists. You just asked me how I thought a god should act.

Maybe because He cares about individuals...

Why? The bible says he loves everyone unconditionally. Doesn't loving individuals mean he is picking favorites? "I like this guy because he listens to what I say. This guy gets a spanking though because he didn't listen." Those are conditions.

I've heard of erotic asphyxiation, but the case I remember did result in death. (There's a difference between feeling like you're dying and dying, ya know

)

Yes I know, but it is as close as you can get to being addicted to death. There are people who get addicted to cutting themselves too.

Right...but you are missing my point. The human brain and body is wired in such a way as to preserve itself from death (drugs and other stuff is more subtle, and the body can't react to it like it can to other threats.) Obviously it does not prevent people from doing self-destructive things, by inclination or by chemically-induced states. But if the human being was as simply reductionistic as you think it is, we'd all be on drugs all the time. It isn't. There are a variety of priorities, and people do things because they choose to, not because they are chemically induced to do so.

We ARE on drugs all the time. That's what neurotransmitters are.

Incidentally...if you believe humans behave entirely off of chemical reactions (not off of choices) and you believe a just God would never interfere on earth, shouldn't we stop prosecuting murderers?

Is this the morality can only arise from god argument? Where did I say that society cannot determine its own morals?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

Sure, they exist in more places than S&G. With what stalkers/sexual predators do and are capable of these days, I think they put whatever S&G were guilty of to shame.

Sure, but those are usually isolated cases.

In the bible, the passage is spelled out like god literally sent destruction to Sodom and Gomorrah for their sins as opposed to the cities just happening to be in the path of some particularly nasty weather systems (for example: New Orleans and Katrina).

Right. So how do we know that New Orleans wasn't being judged by God? (I am DEFINITELY not arguing that it was, just pointing out that if God is in charge of nature, just because something happened naturally does not mean God is not responsible

I'm just arguing logically here based on known scientific processes and time scales. That's all. Remember, I don't even necessarily believe that a god exists. You just asked me how I thought a god should act.

So...basically you think that God should act as if He doesn't exist?

Why? The bible says he loves everyone unconditionally. Doesn't loving individuals mean he is picking favorites? "I like this guy because he listens to what I say. This guy gets a spanking though because he didn't listen." Those are conditions.

Not if He loves all individuals.
And again, I think it seems very reasonable that God punish people for their wrongdoing. (Otherwise, some of those demented people you talked about would have no reckoning.)

We ARE on drugs all the time. That's what neurotransmitters are.

It's not the same and you know it

Is this the morality can only arise from god argument? Where did I say that society cannot determine its own morals?

Um, you were making moral proclamations earlier, so I wanted *your* moral opinion

originally posted by: StalkerSolent
Sure, but those are usually isolated cases.

Are they? The guy in my avatar made a television show out of finding and outing them.

Right. So how do we know that New Orleans wasn't being judged by God? (I am DEFINITELY not arguing that it was, just pointing out that if God is in charge of nature, just because something happened naturally does not mean God is not responsible

We don't. But we do know how weather works and can see how the system formed and tracked its movement to the coast. But I've been saying since the beginning that if god exists his influence is through the natural processes that guide the universe and nothing directly involved, which would be the case if god backed Katrina.

So...basically you think that God should act as if He doesn't exist?

Well seeing as how that is the case with how things stand in reality, yes. Or do you have some direct evidence of god's direct involvement that we all don't know about (minus the bible)?

Not if He loves all individuals.
And again, I think it seems very reasonable that God punish people for their wrongdoing. (Otherwise, some of those demented people you talked about would have no reckoning.)

I thought their reckoning is supposed to be after death? (Actually the bible says that even that isn't true and that there isn't much of a reckoning at all, everyone is redeemed in the end).

It's not the same and you know it

Drugs like heroin, crack, alcohol, etc work by replacing natural neurotransmitters with artificial ones. That is how we develop addictions to them.

Um, you were making moral proclamations earlier, so I wanted *your* moral opinion

I don't like getting emotionally invested in a topic. I like to stay rational and logical. It allows for a better understanding of the situation. Therefore my personal opinion on morality is irrelevant.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

Are they? The guy in my avatar made a television show out of finding and outing them.

Are there entire city-states composed of them?

We don't. But we do know how weather works and can see how the system formed and tracked its movement to the coast. But I've been saying since the beginning that if god exists his influence is through the natural processes that guide the universe and nothing directly involved, which would be the case if god backed Katrina.

I don't see how God is not directly involved if He is influencing the world through nature, but that's OK

Well seeing as how that is the case with how things stand in reality, yes. Or do you have some direct evidence of god's direct involvement that we all don't know about (minus the bible)?

Well, if God does exist we do not know what the world would be like without Him, or if it would even exist at all.

I don't think the Bible should be arbitrarily discounted as evidence; that seems like saying "we will hear all the witnesses in this murder trial except the one who claims to have actually seen the crime committed."

I thought their reckoning is supposed to be after death? (Actually the bible says that even that isn't true and that there isn't much of a reckoning at all, everyone is redeemed in the end).

I must have missed that part. Mind filling me in?

I don't like getting emotionally invested in a topic. I like to stay rational and logical. It allows for a better understanding of the situation. Therefore my personal opinion on morality is irrelevant.

But you've shared it before! Oh well, no biggie

originally posted by: StalkerSolent
Are there entire city-states composed of them?

The way some Christians in this country talk, you'd think so. How do we know that the people who wrote the story of Sodom and Gomorrah weren't like the Christians today, blowing things out of proportion with their accusations of S&G's crimes?

Well, if God does exist we do not know what the world would be like without Him, or if it would even exist at all.

I don't think the Bible should be arbitrarily discounted as evidence; that seems like saying "we will hear all the witnesses in this murder trial except the one who claims to have actually seen the crime committed."

Using the bible as evidence is fine if you have other evidence that is objective that supports it unquestionably. The bible is subjective evidence and subjective evidence should never be used as primary evidence. It should only be used as supplementary evidence for objective evidence.

I must have missed that part. Mind filling me in?

I'm referring to the fact that hell doesn't exist in the bible.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
The way some Christians in this country talk, you'd think so. How do we know that the people who wrote the story of Sodom and Gomorrah weren't like the Christians today, blowing things out of proportion with their accusations of S&G's crimes?

How do we know they weren't a utopian paradise?

Using the bible as evidence is fine if you have other evidence that is objective that supports it unquestionably. The bible is subjective evidence and subjective evidence should never be used as primary evidence. It should only be used as supplementary evidence for objective evidence.

We've been through this before. *All* evidence we possess individually is subjective, and objective evidence, as you think of it, is lacking for many events in the years before Christ. Besides, the Bible (that is, the original texts we have in possession) actually *is* objective evidence, using your ideas. That does not mean that it is true, any more than any other writing is true because it exists. But all evidence is objective evidence of one form or another, even if it is merely objective evidence of delusions.

I'm referring to the fact that hell doesn't exist in the bible.

The word "hell" exists at least 54 times in *my* Bible...but I think you're getting at something else. Spit it out

originally posted by: StalkerSolent
How do we know they weren't a utopian paradise?

I don't, but it is a fairly safe bet that there has been no recorded human utopias past or present. Humans have always been the same throughout the ages and have been motivated by the same factors.

We've been through this before. *All* evidence we possess individually is subjective, and objective evidence, as you think of it, is lacking for many events in the years before Christ. Besides, the Bible (that is, the original texts we have in possession) actually *is* objective evidence, using your ideas. That does not mean that it is true, any more than any other writing is true because it exists. But all evidence is objective evidence of one form or another, even if it is merely objective evidence of delusions.

Objective evidence is testable. Saying "I saw such and such," isn't testable. The entire bible is a collection of stories of people saying, "I saw such and such."

The word "hell" exists at least 54 times in *my* Bible...but I think you're getting at something else. Spit it out

Is There a Burning Hell?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

I don't, but it is a fairly safe bet that there has been no recorded human utopias past or present. Humans have always been the same throughout the ages and have been motivated by the same factors.

Agreed. But my point is, you seem to be questioning whether or not God destroyed the city justly, not whether or not He did it. Seems inconsistent, since you are using the same source for both.

Objective evidence is testable. Saying "I saw such and such," isn't testable. The entire bible is a collection of stories of people saying, "I saw such and such."

Along with history and journalism

Is There a Burning Hell?

I'm aware of the different meanings of the words that have been translated "hell," but that exegesis you linked to did not (in my humble opinion) do a good job of interpreting all of Scripture consistently. (Read: sorry, not persuaded.) I don't have an inherent opposition to the view that humans who are unsaved simply cease to exist, but I do not think it adequately explains certain texts in Scripture. (I'm also not certain they are aware of the original Greek/Hebrew context; I'd feel more comfortable trusting their interpretations as being something aside from wishful thinking if I knew their credentials.)

originally posted by: StalkerSolent
Agreed. But my point is, you seem to be questioning whether or not God destroyed the city justly, not whether or not He did it. Seems inconsistent, since you are using the same source for both.

I'm just trying to deconstruct the ideas logically. If my ideas are starting to contradict or not make sense, that is the point. This is called a proof by contradiction. I don't believe for a second that god destroyed either of those cities, even if he did exist. Those cities were most likely destroyed by natural forces on the planet.

Along with history and journalism

Correct, but there is much of history that is backed up by objective evidence (coins in Roman times with Caesar's face on them for instance), so while the claims may not be 100% true, we can trust that they have the right idea.

I'm aware of the different meanings of the words that have been translated "hell," but that exegesis you linked to did not (in my humble opinion) do a good job of interpreting all of Scripture consistently. (Read: sorry, not persuaded.) I don't have an inherent opposition to the view that humans who are unsaved simply cease to exist, but I do not think it adequately explains certain texts in Scripture. (I'm also not certain they are aware of the original Greek/Hebrew context; I'd feel more comfortable trusting their interpretations as being something aside from wishful thinking if I knew their credentials.)

Well I can find more sources for this idea as well (like this one and another), the problem is that many religious sites tend to be poorly made or done by unstudied people. It is tough to wade through all the crap (and I don't have the time to do it adequately). Though playing the interpretation game with the bible is really the crux of the issue. The bible could mean anything to anyone and even that opinion could change by the day. No one is 100% sure what the bible is and isn't saying. What is and isn't metaphor. What is and isn't literal. Throw in the bad translations over the years and cultural bias and it's all a crapshoot.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

I'm just trying to deconstruct the ideas logically. If my ideas are starting to contradict or not make sense, that is the point. This is called a proof by contradiction. I don't believe for a second that god destroyed either of those cities, even if he did exist. Those cities were most likely destroyed by natural forces on the planet.

I'm not sure there's a contradiction between "God" and "natural forces on the planet" since religions often credit God with power over such natural forces.

Correct, but there is much of history that is backed up by objective evidence (coins in Roman times with Caesar's face on them for instance), so while the claims may not be 100% true, we can trust that they have the right idea.

Sort of like we can take claims about Mickey Mouse to be true, because we have objective evidence of his existence?

the problem is that many religious sites tend to be poorly made or done by unstudied people. It is tough to wade through all the crap (and I don't have the time to do it adequately). Though playing the interpretation game with the bible is really the crux of the issue. The bible could mean anything to anyone and even that opinion could change by the day. No one is 100% sure what the bible is and isn't saying. What is and isn't metaphor. What is and isn't literal. Throw in the bad translations over the years and cultural bias and it's all a crapshoot.

Yeah, I hear you. I'd really recommend checking out Dr. Mike Heiser, he actually reads ancient languages (so he bypasses the bad translations problems) and he doesn't care a bit about cultural bias (except the cultural biases of the people who lived when the Bible was written, obviously.) You might find him a refreshing break from the typical trash peddled on the internet.
BTW, sorry for the long response time. I was busy and/or very lazy there for a few weeks!

originally posted by: StalkerSolent

I'm not sure there's a contradiction between "God" and "natural forces on the planet" since religions often credit God with power over such natural forces.

Well we can predict weather events and know what causes them. So if a god is controlling natural forces, it isn't doing it consciously.

Sort of like we can take claims about Mickey Mouse to be true, because we have objective evidence of his existence?

We also have overwhelming objective evidence saying that Mickey Mouse isn't real and that the evidence to the contrary is probably edited (like maybe being a cartoon) video or some such

Yeah, I hear you. I'd really recommend checking out Dr. Mike Heiser, he actually reads ancient languages (so he bypasses the bad translations problems) and he doesn't care a bit about cultural bias (except the cultural biases of the people who lived when the Bible was written, obviously.) You might find him a refreshing break from the typical trash peddled on the internet.
BTW, sorry for the long response time. I was busy and/or very lazy there for a few weeks!

Maybe I will. Though it still won't break the lingering doubt that he could still be talking about a several thousand year old fiction story. Regardless of what was meant to be said, quality control didn't exist back then.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

Well we can predict weather events and know what causes them. So if a god is controlling natural forces, it isn't doing it consciously.

Or maybe it's editing our memories along with the rest of reality

We also have overwhelming objective evidence saying that Mickey Mouse isn't real and that the evidence to the contrary is probably edited (like maybe being a cartoon) video or some such

But will we in 2000 years?
At a certain point, we simply have to trust secondary evidence if we are to do history. That doesn't mean we let our brain float away, but we have to trust what was written by historians as being grounded in reality; otherwise, those coins and shrines and monuments become meaningless.

Maybe I will. Though it still won't break the lingering doubt that he could still be talking about a several thousand year old fiction story. Regardless of what was meant to be said, quality control didn't exist back then.

Quality control *definitely* existed back then. The Jewish scribes were a bunch of uptight copyists, which is why the Torah was passed down so faithfully (we know this because of the Dead Sea Scrolls.)

originally posted by: StalkerSolent

Or maybe it's editing our memories along with the rest of reality

If that is the case then there is no point in trying to figure it out if the wrong memory is implanted in our heads after the fact.

But will we in 2000 years?
At a certain point, we simply have to trust secondary evidence if we are to do history. That doesn't mean we let our brain float away, but we have to trust what was written by historians as being grounded in reality; otherwise, those coins and shrines and monuments become meaningless.

If all we had was the evidence that suggested that Mickey really existed then we'd be wrong in our theories. Just because you trust the source doesn't mean you are correct. You can't just blindly believe it because it is the only evidence. A dubious source is a dubious source regardless if it is the only source you have.

Quality control *definitely* existed back then. The Jewish scribes were a bunch of uptight copyists, which is why the Torah was passed down so faithfully (we know this because of the Dead Sea Scrolls.)

The Torah was passed down orally before it was written down. Now they SAY that the Torah was memorized faithfully by each new generation, but there is no way we can verify that.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

If that is the case then there is no point in trying to figure it out if the wrong memory is implanted in our heads after the fact.

Yup

If all we had was the evidence that suggested that Mickey really existed then we'd be wrong in our theories. Just because you trust the source doesn't mean you are correct. You can't just blindly believe it because it is the only evidence. A dubious source is a dubious source regardless if it is the only source you have.

Agreed.

The Torah was passed down orally before it was written down. Now they SAY that the Torah was memorized faithfully by each new generation, but there is no way we can verify that.

Actually, there *is* a way to verify it: dig up old copies and see if they match the new ones. That's why the finding of the Dead Sea Scrolls was a really big deal.

a reply to: StalkerSolent

Yes but the earliest versions of the Torah were all passed on orally, predating the Dead Sea Scrolls. We can get a good idea of what the Torah said at the time of those writings and if the message stayed largely the same since then, but up until that point there is no way to verify that the message was passed down word for word. And looking at how fantastical that some of the stories in the OT got, I wouldn't be surprised if there is a bit of embellishing having occurred.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: StalkerSolent

Yes but the earliest versions of the Torah were all passed on orally, predating the Dead Sea Scrolls. We can get a good idea of what the Torah said at the time of those writings and if the message stayed largely the same since then, but up until that point there is no way to verify that the message was passed down word for word. And looking at how fantastical that some of the stories in the OT got, I wouldn't be surprised if there is a bit of embellishing having occurred.

Er, we don't actually *know* they were passed along orally, although that may indeed have been the case.