Religion, Scripture and logical thinking

a reply to: NOTurTypical

Probably all of them... Theres several different schools of thought on the matter...

Some believe all Jews were present at Sinai and have been reincarnated over and over since that time...

Mostly its found in Kabbalah... but im sure you can find references to it in various other versions of the religion

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
I read the scholarship of Dr. Bruce Metzger, considered the greatest scholar and textual critic of the 20th century

The name sounds familiar but I'm not sure if I am familiar with the work or not. I will check him out ofc, and see what he has to offer.

So why not agnosticism? Even the great Anthony Flew understood his atheistic stance wasn't logical and had to amend it. He never accepted Jesus, but he had to abandon his atheism.

Actually I'm in the camp that believes agnostics are atheist and don't realize it or wish to label themselves as such. It's a safety net position. Agnostics claim neither faith nor disbelief in God. Atheism is a lack of belief in God. Ergo agnostics are atheists. If you claim no belief in God, you are an atheist. Simple as that. There are differences when it comes to types of atheism, which I outlined here. I'm not entirely sure which category I fit into tbh. Agnostic atheist boarderline strong atheist. I do have opinions on what I would consider a God, and thoughts on spirituality and things outside the material world.

a reply to: Akragon

Mostly its found in Kabbalah...

I figured, the Kabbalah is satanic mysticism. It not only rejects a lot of the Torah and Prophets, but in fact teaches a lot that is 180 degrees in the opposite direction. Jesus mocked the Pharisees for their Pharisaical Judaism, which was elevating their rabbi teachings and traditions on par with the Torah and Prophets.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

John the Baptist had the spirit and anointing of Elijah

Right. How hard is this to understand, then?

He HAD THE SPIRIT AND ANOINTING = Reincarnation.
This is really unfathomable for you? Really?

Think it over.

a reply to: WakeUpBeer

Atheism is a lack of belief in God.

No, that is a fall back after prominent atheists in the past realized atheism was an illogical position to have in debates with theists. ATHEIST comes from the Greek. The alpha (A) is the negative position, and "Theos" means God. Atheos means "no God". It's not a logical position because someone has to have the attributes of God to believe He doesn't exist anywhere in the universe or in any dimension outside space time.

Agnostics only have to prove that they don't know. lol I'm not attacking you, don't get me wrong, but if great debaters in the past like Flew abandoned his atheism why don't you?

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

He HAD THE SPIRIT AND ANOINTING = Reincarnation.

No. Elisha also had the spirit and anointing of Elijah in the OT, in fact a "double-portion", and both men were alive simultaneously until Elijah died.

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: Akragon

Mostly its found in Kabbalah...

I figured, the Kabbalah is satanic mysticism. It not only rejects a lot of the Torah and Prophets, but in fact teaches a lot that is 180 degrees in the opposite direction. Jesus mocked the Pharisees for their Pharisaical Judaism, which was elevating their rabbi teachings and traditions on par with the Torah and Prophets.

Alright... Well you can't just label and dismiss things with me... you should know that...

its not just Kabbalah anyways... and im sure they have good reason to reject many of the prophets... theres some messed up stuff in the OT... so anyone in their right mind wouldn't think twice about rejecting some things...

Not a Christian of course... heaven forbid a Christian question the good book...

Traditional Judaism firmly believes that death is not the end of human existence. However, because Judaism is primarily focused on life here and now rather than on the afterlife, Judaism does not have much dogma about the afterlife, and leaves a great deal of room for personal opinion. It is possible for an Orthodox Jew to believe that the souls of the righteous dead go to a place similar to the Christian heaven, or that they are reincarnated through many lifetimes, or that they simply wait until the coming of the messiah, when they will be resurrected. Likewise, Orthodox Jews can believe that the souls of the wicked are tormented by demons of their own creation, or that wicked souls are simply destroyed at death, ceasing to exist.

www.jewfaq.org...

Oh and by the way... Jesus didn't mock the Pharisees for their "Pharisaical" Judaism.. as you put it.... as if Pharisee is a bad word, I know many Christians use it as such...

the people he was talking to did not adhere to what they taught...

the "do as I say not as I do" mentality is what he was mocking... which was why he said to them "you give all these rules but you won't lift a finger yourselves" (paraphrased)

a reply to: NOTurTypical

No. Elisha also had the spirit and anointing of Elijah in the OT, in fact a "double-portion", and both men were alive simultaneously until Elijah died.

Makes no difference.

Elisha had a 'double-portion'? Of WHAT? The Spirit and Anointing. So - that's great evidence that the 'spirit' can (and does) return, and can even be within more than one human at the same time!

Fractals.

Both men alive. Shared 'spirit'.
Nice try, though.
(Sorry, friend. Reincarnation EXPLAINS ALL OF IT.)

a reply to: WakeUpBeer

Agnostics claim neither faith nor disbelief in God.

Correct. It is a stance that says "i don't know - and neither do you - and we CAN'T".

Atheism is a lack of belief in God.

Atheism is a belief that THERE IS NO GOD.

Ergo agnostics are atheists. If you claim no belief in God, you are an atheist.

No - agnostics claim that IT CAN'T BE KNOWN ONE WAY OR ANOTHER if there is a God. Atheists claim that THERE IS NO GOD.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

It's all good. I don't feel you are attacking me.

We are merely conversing about a subject that is very personal. It's easy for people to feel attacked when talking about religion.

I think you might be getting unnecessarily technical in regards to the etymology of atheism. Words and their meanings often evolve and change over time. Not only that but the same exact thing you said about atheism can be applied to theism. It's not a logical position because someone would need Godlike attributes to say he exists anywhere in the universe in any dimension outside space and time.

You can have all the subjective experiences you want (I had some too) but that isn't evidence to anyone but yourself and like minded individuals. Those experiences are often reflected on through a personal bias and reenforced through the same. What about the subjective experiences of people in religions other than Christianity? Can you say without doubt that the Muslim who believes Allah is telling him to blow himself up isn't really hearing the voice of God (same in regards to positive religious experiences Muslims have)?

So all over the planet we have people having various experiences of one kind or another that reenforce their belief or prove to them that this or that set of beliefs is universal truth. Now what? How am I supposed to figure out which religion has the truth, or at least, the most of it? It's at this point where it comes back around to personal relationships and subjective experiences.

I realize many people will try and point to other evidence to support their religious beliefs. Such as archeological, scientific and the like. However actual unbiased evidence is against them, or doesn't necessarily support their position. For example, YEC and the age of the Earth. The fact that some figures and places in the Bible historically existed doesn't prove the divine aspects of it all is real either. In all actuality the evidence put forth by theists as conclusive proof falls flat on its face. As I said, they present nothing that can't be logically explained without the need of bringing God into the argument. Subjective experiences included.

So in the face of all the inconsistencies, impossibilities, known mythologies, etc. etc. (this post is already large enough) the evidence is that none of the claimed Gods are real and all stemmed from the minds of men.

Strong Atheists make the definitive claim there are absolutely no Gods.
Agnostic Atheists don't know that there definitively are no Gods.
Agnostics have neither faith nor disbelief in God ergo they are Agnostic Atheists.

Maybe a better way for me to look at it would be to say this:
Atheists can also be agnostic but agnostics can't also be atheists.

Personally, I believe that the various Gods claimed to exist, absolutely do not exist. However I am open minded to the possibility that something may exist that might qualify as a God. Though I think the term God needs redefining because I find it too vague.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
Correct. It is a stance that says "i don't know - and neither do you - and we CAN'T".

Perhaps not in regards to something that would qualify as a God. In regards to the Gods that have been claimed to exist however, yes we can know imo.

Atheism is a belief that THERE IS NO GOD.

There are different types of atheism people identify with, as I have summarized a couple times in this thread already.

No - agnostics claim that IT CAN'T BE KNOWN ONE WAY OR ANOTHER if there is a God. Atheists claim that THERE IS NO GOD.

The "it can't be known one way or another" part of agnosticism is what bothers me. Why can't it be known? Why limit yourself to a position of "I don't know and it can never be known"? Am I to believe agnostics never study a subject? This is why agnostic atheism makes more sense to me. Again, some atheists claim there are no Gods while others don't see any evidence to support theist claims thus don't believe in a God but are open to the possibility.

Agnostics claim neither faith nor disbelief in a God. It's fine to say "I don't know" but the fact still remains that they don't believe in a God.

Edit:
Hey, maybe I'm just splitting hairs. These are just my opinions of course. I certainly don't have problems with people labeling themselves agnostic or having neutral positions. Perhaps one of the agnostics here can school me on the position they would know more about.

If atheism is a belief that would mean that Christians hold many beliefs.

One belief that their god exists

and

Separate beliefs that other gods do not exist.


At one time I thought I was agnostic.

It was pointed out after some debate that my thoughts on Deities wasn't agnosticism it was apathy because I just didn't care.

After some time I gave it some thought and realized that I didn't believe in deities but wasn't certain if I was correct.

So at that point I found out what that is called.

Agnostic Atheist. Anything less than 100% certainty is agnostic. 100% certainty is gnostic.

a reply to: WakeUpBeer

Am I to believe agnostics never study a subject?

Of course not! Agnostics are probably the MOST studious of them all - looking for answers that stick the landing.

I appreciate your 'agnostic atheism'. I consider myself an 'agnostic deist'.

The "it can't be known one way or another" part of agnosticism is what bothers me. Why can't it be known? Why limit yourself to a position of "I don't know and it can never be known"?

Because it is (in the agnostic interpretation) impossible for humans to UNDERSTAND a deity.

Therefore, because it is beyond our comprehension - we cant make a judgment call.
Something out there that is beyond our understanding might exist, but we will NEVER be able to understand it while in these bodies on this planet.

a reply to: WakeUpBeer

Not only that but the same exact thing you said about atheism can be applied to theism. It's not a logical position because someone would need Godlike attributes to say he exists anywhere in the universe in any dimension outside space and time.

I have to challenge this. To believe He exists one only needs some evidence, not complete knowledge. Atheism is completely different, one would need omnipresence to verify He doesn't exist anywhere in the known universe, physical or in other dimensions.

Example: For me to believe that "there exists gold in China" I would only need to see a single speck of it. For me to believe that "there is NO gold in China" I would need to know or verify it existed no place in the ground, in any electronic equipment, in no riverbed, and in nobody's mouth. It takes exponentially more knowledge to believe something does not exist than to believe it does.

You can have all the subjective experiences you want (I had some too) but that isn't evidence to anyone but yourself and like minded individuals.

Correct. Both atheism and theism are personal belief structures.

As I said, they present nothing that can't be logically explained without the need of bringing God into the argument.

But doesn't the Bible say He is a singularity? Isn't that the basic fundamental idea of a miracle? God changing the impossible with His hand?

a reply to: Akragon

Oh and by the way... Jesus didn't mock the Pharisees for their "Pharisaical" Judaism.. as you put it....

He sure did, Mark chapter 7. Pharisaical Judaism has the teachings of the rabbis and their traditions on par with and even exceeding the Torah and Prophets. Jesus said by following their traditions they "have made the Word of God to none effect."

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
To believe He exists one only needs some evidence, not complete knowledge.

So where's the unquestionable evidence?

Atheism is completely different, one would need omnipresence to verify He doesn't exist anywhere in the known universe, physical or in other dimensions.

I have to disagree. I feel confident that with some rational logical thinking your God can be proven not to exist outside the minds of men. However if we broaden it to a God of some type, sure perhaps. Though I find it unlikely.

I would like you to apply your logic to every other God or Goddess that has ever been claimed to exist. Without omnipresence it is impossible for you to say they don't exist. Furthermore it is impossible for you to say the religions and beliefs surrounding them don't have the accurate universal truth. You cannot know which creation story is true. You cannot say which end times scenario is true. You cannot say they are evil, or "satanic", false etc. Are you certain that Kali isn't adding another head to her necklace right now? Are you certain we aren't being played for fools by Loki?

The evidence for their existence is no different than the evidence for the existence of your God. Probably not in every case honestly, but I think you understand my point.

Example: For me to believe that "there exists gold in China" I would only need to see a single speck of it. For me to believe that "there is NO gold in China" I would need to know or verify it existed no place in the ground, in any electronic equipment, in no riverbed, and in nobody's mouth. It takes exponentially more knowledge to believe something does not exist than to believe it does.

Or you could take the position that you see no evidence of there being gold in China but are open to the possibility and are willing to look at and consider evidence people share with you to support their beliefs that there is gold in China. Though I feel it is unlikely something that would qualify as a God exists in the traditional sense of the word, I am not making the claim that it's an impossibility. This is why I say I am an agnostic atheist borderline strong atheist.

Correct. Both atheism and theism are personal belief structures.

Ok? So are you choosing not to comment on the rest of those paragraphs?

I felt I made some good points and was interested in what you would say.

But doesn't the Bible say He is a singularity? Isn't that the basic fundamental idea of a miracle? God changing the impossible with His hand?

I'm unaware of the Bible saying God is a singularity. I'm not really sure what this comment has to do with the portion of text you were replying to. Sorry if I am missing the point on this one.

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: Akragon

Oh and by the way... Jesus didn't mock the Pharisees for their "Pharisaical" Judaism.. as you put it....

He sure did, Mark chapter 7. Pharisaical Judaism has the teachings of the rabbis and their traditions on par with and even exceeding the Torah and Prophets. Jesus said by following their traditions they "have made the Word of God to none effect."

Fair enough

you got me there...

originally posted by: StalkerSolent

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

Correction: The opposite USED to be true, but then science came along and showed that oral retellings AREN'T trustworthy. You can't trump science with ancient beliefs.

I'm pretty sure the science you are thinking of is based on modern studies, which cannot evaluate the accuracy of retellings in a culture where that was a major method of transmission. It may be the case that they are less trustworthy, but comparing apples to oranges is bad science.

That would be true if you could produce the evidence that says that human thinking was different back in those days than it is today. I see no reason why that would be the case, therefore modern studies should be applicable to analyzing ancient human minds.

All it takes is misremembering one detail in one retelling, then misremembering another detail in another retelling. Eventually these missed details add up and the story changes. And missed details occur within the first retelling.

originally posted by: NOTurTypical

I have to challenge this. To believe He exists one only needs some evidence, not complete knowledge. Atheism is completely different, one would need omnipresence to verify He doesn't exist anywhere in the known universe, physical or in other dimensions.

Example: For me to believe that "there exists gold in China" I would only need to see a single speck of it. For me to believe that "there is NO gold in China" I would need to know or verify it existed no place in the ground, in any electronic equipment, in no riverbed, and in nobody's mouth. It takes exponentially more knowledge to believe something does not exist than to believe.

I agree, and of course gold is an apt metaphor for the Divine. But seeing a speck of gold in the ground is one thing. Placing that gold into a fully-functional, internally consistent mythological/religious system is another thing.

The Christianity of the man-on-the-street is not fully-functional. I'm not sure of it ever really was. Back in the day, early Christians struggled to place their Johnny-come-lately religion into historical context. Is this the same gold that philosophia perennis shows to be everywhere and everywhen (but in different forms), or is this an entirely new gold that is cut-off from ancient wisdom?

Back in the day, ancient = better. Was Christianity new, or was it old? Is it the true religion that had already been known to the pagan nations, and which came to be called the Christian religion, after the universal Logos had been incarnated as Jesus Christ? Or is it so radically new that it has no roots, no traces of ancient wisdom in it?

This gold is new and true, yours is false and old. No, our gold has stood the test of time, yours is a radical Johnny-come-lately. No, there is one gold in many cross-cultural forms. No, there is no gold. Anywhere. Except in your mind. No, all that glitters is gold.

👣

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
I have to challenge this. To believe He exists one only needs some evidence, not complete knowledge. Atheism is completely different, one would need omnipresence to verify He doesn't exist anywhere in the known universe, physical or in other dimensions.

Existence doesn't imply godhood though. You have to produce further evidence that he really could do supernatural acts like heal the sick and walk on water.

Example: For me to believe that "there exists gold in China" I would only need to see a single speck of it. For me to believe that "there is NO gold in China" I would need to know or verify it existed no place in the ground, in any electronic equipment, in no riverbed, and in nobody's mouth. It takes exponentially more knowledge to believe something does not exist than to believe it does.

This is a problem with logical thought, but you are correct and because you are correct, it remains a theist's strongest argument in favor of god. Though that isn't saying much, because they also haven't produced that singular piece of evidence to prove god's existence either.

In any case, it is just easier to be agnostic. You are never wrong.