Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
if a book is not a reliable source for you then set it aside. like people do all the time with books that aren't their cup of tea. it sounds like you are saying not just that you don't find the book a reliable source, but it bothers you (in a big way) that other people do find the book a reliable source. it sounds like at some primal level you are incensed and deeply disturbed that someone likes a book that you don't.
that to me is not reasonable or rational.
unless there is more to it than just "she likes Shakespeare, he likes Tolkien." If there is something more, can you identify what it is that really bothers you about the book or the people who value the book?
Quote:
Originally Posted by nateswift
So, basically you don't believethere IS such a thing as truth, it's all just a matter of opinion. I was beginning to see the inanity, thank you.
...I'm sure everyone agrees that, as a matter of plain old physical causation, there is no doubt that future generations are hurt or rewarded based on the faults or accomplishments of the previous generations. But the Exodus passage clearly shows God proclaiming himself to be a jealous God, and in various other passages he reminds people that he is a vengeful God. When a Being who clearly admits to being jealous and vengeful says that he will punish future generations for the sins of the past generations, you need to do some rhetorical gymnastics to spin that in such a way that the suffering of the children is not in some sense divinely purposeful, rather than merely the mechanical grinding of cause and effect. Earlier I mentioned the Great Flood because it, too, provides some context. If that story is literally true (which I'm fairly certain it is not), then God has clearly demonstrated his vengeful nature and his willingness to purposefully inflict great suffering on innocent human beings when he gets pissed off.
Obviously a bunch of mechanical cause/effect happens. The question is whether or not God purposefully imposes suffering on people because of the sins of their previous generations. Exodus clearly indicates "yes" and "Ezekiel" clearly indicates "no"...
you bring up a good point here, that of purposeful.
some of the examples you have used are the flood, a boy and his parents dying in a fire, children punished or not for the sins of their fathers. you also mentioned "personal fairness."
i'll go back to what i said before and then add to it, in my framework of beliefs:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel
...
see "God" as the rules and laws that run the universe, a set of laws that are reliable, consistent, logical.
nature is part of those rules and laws, but there is more.
see "punishment" as bad stuff happening that you would rather not have happening
see "rewards" as good stuff that you like having come into your life
see "sin" as not doing the right thing.
what's the "right thing?" it's what brings you the good stuff.
since everybody wants the good stuff, there is a set of "instructions" on how to do the right thing.
then there is you. you have free will. you have personal responsibility for your thought, speech, action, and feelings. How you live your daily life in every situation has a powerful effect on what goes on in your life.....
so Gaylen you're asking about fairness and children dying and whole populations being wiped out who did nothing to deserve it. and does that make God the Big Meanie in the sky.
yes there is purpose in everything
nothing is random
things that seem "unfair" and "tragic" when seen from a higher perspective with more information make perfect sense
people pass on by agreement. not at the level of their human thinking, but at the level of their soul.
the soul is eternal and may go through many lifetimes (reincarnation) so what happens in this lifetime may be related to something from a previous lifetime.
we may not see it or understand it but yes there is justice and fairness.
just as the purpose in this lifetime is to learn to live with integrity (kindness, compassion, generosity, loving, honest, peaceful) we come back over and over and over to learn and develop these traits.
back to your question Gaylen, yes everything that happens is divinely purposeful.
every soul in every moment is held in the arms of Divine love, nurtured, comforted, safe, and adored. And nothing can ever change that.
That is the truth of who we are. Forever.
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 12-09-2017 at 10:23 PM..
When you can explain coherently why a thing is NOT true for everybody, you will have a case. Until then, inanity.
for mordant, quality of life is tremendously improved without religion. That is true for him.
It is not true for everybody.
for Trans the best music in the world is classical music. That is true for him.
It is not true for everybody.
Cheese makes me very sick. That is true for me.
It is not true for everybody.
The book is a reliable source of wisdom. That is true for me.
It is not true for everybody.
Philosophy discussions are engaging, meaningful, and fun. That is true for Gaylen.
It is not true for everybody.
let's get Gaylen in on this too, he is great at explaining things and clarifying terms. Gaylen, you're wanted over here on aisle 208. discussion and examples of when (or whether) something can be "true for you" but not "true for everyone."
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 12-09-2017 at 11:42 PM..
Agreed. One should never have faith in philosophy books. Holy books are, essentially, philosophy books. Keep in mind that 'Philosophy' literally means "love of wisdom" so to engage in philosophical debate is (or, at least ought to be) to pursue wisdom due to one's love of wisdom. If one studies a holy book in pursuit of wisdom, one is essentially engaging in philosophical pursuit. But I suggest that all philosophy books be read with an eye toward critical thinking if one wishes to derive wisdom or moral guidance from them (as opposed to reading for inspiration or entertainment).
Gaylen you mentioned this a while back about philosophy in holy books. There is philosophy in religion, but religion is more than that because it also includes relationship with the Divine, and improving a person's character through how they live their daily life. If philosophy is thinking deeply and discussing ideas, then religion is not just thinking deeply and discussing ideas, but putting them into practice in daily life. Walking the talk. Not just talking.
if this is philosophy:
"love of Wisdom + Understanding Yourself and the World"
then this for religion:
"love of God + Improving yourself and the world"
for me a holy book is not just for study but to put into practice in my daily life, how to improve my character, live a life with integrity, draw ever closer to God.
when someone identifies as a "scholar" of this or that holy book, it often means they "study" it but don't practice it. so they have a different reason for studying it. we see that on these boards. some people "study" a book so they can argue about it. Teed does not even validate the existence of God, his stated purpose in the abstract is to argue better with atheists. that's what's driving his bus in that article, nothing to do with drawing closer to God, or improving his character, just (near as I can tell) semantic fiddling of words for the purpose of one upmanship in a debate.
someone can "study" a holy book for decades but if they don't put it into practice to improve their character or nourish a connection to the Divine they are doing the "study" for a different motive altogether with nil results regarding what it was intended for. You can use a book for a door stop but won't get much wisdom or character refinement from it that way.
A "scholar" of dance may know "about dance" but it doesn't mean they know how to dance.
so "why" a person is reading a book, and how they approach a book, is a significant factor in what they get out of it, how useful they find it, how effective it is for them, and whether it makes sense to them. All of that is a function of what THEY bring to the table; it is NOT a function of the book.
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 12-10-2017 at 03:07 AM..
yes there is purpose in everything
nothing is random
things that seem "unfair" and "tragic" when seen from a higher perspective with more information make perfect sense
people pass on by agreement. not at the level of their human thinking, but at the level of their soul.
the soul is eternal and may go through many lifetimes (reincarnation) so what happens in this lifetime may be related to something from a previous lifetime.
we may not see it or understand it but yes there is justice and fairness.
Although we still disagree on some key points, I'm gaining new respect for the spirit of your approach to these discussions. One deep concern that I have for your approach is that it is logically "self-sealing" which suggests that, in the context of rational discussion, you are in a sort of "bubble" that makes you (probably unconsciously) immune to contrary views. (That, basically, is the nature of faith in almost any context - it provides a feeling of certainty about something that cannot be rationally defended.) To be fair, of course, we all have to accept the idea of some "brute facts" that can't be rationally explained.
As long as you are not an evangelical style of fundamentalist concerning holy books, then all is well so far as I am concerned. It may indeed be "true for you" that your faith in holy scriptures makes you a more loving, compassionate, productive person, and I have no particular interest in upsetting your apple cart just because I don't get the same benefits from holy books. Nevertheless this is a discussion forum, so, of course, I will offer my alternative views, for whatever they may be worth.
I understand the comfort to be found in the view that every detail of reality has a divine purpose, and for those who do not translate this comfort into intolerance, bigotry, etc., I applaud the emotional strength and stability that this feeling of comfort provides. In fact, I might even encourage some people to find comfort in this sort of view if I felt that they would benefit from it. I might even go so far as to say that this could be the objectively best path for you. Perhaps there is an "absolute"/objective element of truth, and by this standard you could be absolutely/objectively on the best path for you (even if it is not the only path, or the best path, for everyone). From what I can see, you seem to accept that different people have different paths, so when it comes down to the things that really matter the most, you are I are actually in fundamental agreement. We are simply quibbling over some of the finer details.
An example of one of the details over which we disagree would be this: I am inclined to be highly skeptical of the idea that everything really has a divine purpose and that everything always eventually comes out for the better. You have faith in the idea, whereas I have basically the opposite of faith in that idea. I see Reality as more "organic" than "designed" and, as a result, I see genuine risk of failure. I'm agnostic on "God" talk, but if I were to translate my subtle notions of "Reality" in God talk, a simplistic "soundbite" rendition of my view might be this: God is literally growing/evolving in some profoundly unpredictable ways. I sometimes put it (somewhat tongue in cheek) this way: God is fundamentally a solipsist and an existentialist. For current purposes I would add that God is more like a "gardener" or a "pregnant woman" or an "artist" (pick your metaphor) than an "engineer" or "craftsman" or "architect".
There may be (and I suspect there is) "vision", or "hope" or maybe even "expectation" to some degree, but what is lacking is any perfect knowable algorithm. I doubt that Reality is fully deterministic, but even if is deterministic, I'd say it is a self-organizing deterministic system, which means (for deeply logical reasons that I won't try to explain here) that it is inherently unpredictable. The only way to find out where a self-organizing system "goes" is to let it unfold step-by-step. There is, in principle, no way to skip steps or "jump ahead" to see how it unfolds. Even if one can, somehow, "see the future" the act of "seeing" the future changes it is unpredictable ways. I know that people want to say "But God is infinite! You can't say what God can't do!" But that is precisely the "self-sealing" property I mentioned. It's the "somehow God does it" approach that prevents "infection" from any alternative views. As I say, this immunity might be ultimately good for some people, but I, personally, just don't buy it as being any sort of ultimate/objective truth that is "true for everyone". And, I think, that for some people, at least, this self-sealing "God somehow makes sense of it all" is a literally destructive path that causes a lot of unnecessary confusion and suffering. (And, in most cases, when this path takes a destructive turn, the ill-effects stem from faith in specific holy books as being "the word of God" or "the one true path" rather than just the more fundamental faith in the more abstract notion of divine purpose.
Last edited by Gaylenwoof; 12-10-2017 at 10:43 AM..
let's get Gaylen in on this too, he is great at explaining things and clarifying terms. Gaylen, you're wanted over here on aisle 208. discussion and examples of when (or whether) something can be "true for you" but not "true for everyone."
I believe that there are some "brute facts" of reality, and thus there are some elements of "objective" or "absolute" truth. One of the brute facts of life is that conscious beings have feelings and subjective preferences. In other words, it is objectively true that subjectivity exists. It seems to me that you keep presenting uncontroversial examples of subjective preference-based or perspective-based truths (where the expression "true for me" makes perfect sense) as if they somehow prove that you are right about the truths of certain Biblical claims. Obviously you can interpret Biblical claims in different ways, and different interpretations will imply different truths. But it seems to me that you keep avoiding the core idea that we keep trying to make, so let's see if I can nail this down in a way that we can all agree upon:
(1) Holy books are interpreted in different ways.
(2) Some people interpret holy books in ways that lead to irrational and potentially destructive actions.
(3) If someone interprets a claim in a holy book in such a way that they behave in an irrational or destructive way, their faith in their interpretation of the holy book as the "word of God" and their trust in the idea that God has a plan that somehow makes it all make sense, seals them into a logical bubble that makes it virtually impossible for anyone to "get through to them" and show them how inane or destructive their beliefs and actions really are. In such cases, the holy book (or, more precisely, their interpretation of the holy book) acts like a source of "cognitive blindness" or "delusion" that is nearly impossible to overcome.
My solution: Don't encourage anyone to have faith in any book as being unalterable "words of God". Reading for the purpose of creative inspiration, spiritual inspiration, or entertainment is fine, but if one is looking for information about the natural world, history, or morality, then read critically. Make a sincere effort to evaluate ideas in the light of scientifically tested empirical evidence and the rules of logic. If one does this, I'm fairly confident they will conclude that, for example: the earth is billions of years old, humans evolved over millions of years, Abraham was morally misguided when seriously planning to sacrifice his son, humanity was not virtually wiped-out in a great flood, gay people are probably not literally headed for eternal hell-fire, Paul was not giving wise or God-inspired advice when he said that women should keep silence in church, and so on.
BTW (back to the idea of a divine purpose for everything): I would add that the killing of millions of people in the holocaust, for one example, was probably not part of God's perfect divine plan. Rather, it was a devastating event that did not have to happen in order for something good to happen - rather, if things turn out ok, it is despite the holocaust, not because of it. Yes, by the sheer complexity of causation in the natural world, the holocaust opened the door for certain good things to happen, but I would bet my life on the idea that it was not part of some divine plan that made it necessary for some "greater good" and it probably closed more doors to good than it opened. If there is a God, then God probably wiped his brow after WWII and said "Whew, that was messed up! Now how do we figure out how to heal from this?" And that would not be a rhetorical question. It would be a genuine question with no guarantee of a perfect solution.
Last edited by Gaylenwoof; 12-10-2017 at 12:15 PM..
I believe that there are some "brute facts" of reality, and thus there are some elements of "objective" or "absolute" truth. One of the brute facts of life is that conscious beings have feelings and subjective preferences. In other words, it is objectively true that subjectivity exists. It seems to me that you keep presenting uncontroversial examples of subjective preference-based or perspective-based truths (where the expression "true for me" makes perfect sense) as if they somehow prove that you are right about the truths of certain Biblical claims.
there is a problem using "right" as if for this topic there is a "right" and a "wrong." There is no such thing as a "right" religion, look at the variety of what's out there! There is no "right" way to worship or "right" religious figure to venerate most highly above all others, look at the variety of what's out there!
Can you see what is problematic in using for this topic "right" and "truth" as if they are the same for everybody, as if there even is such a thing that exists? There isn't that's why the premise is flawed from the get go when a person uses language like "Prove that you are right about the truths". There is no such thing. There is simply each person explaining their views and their understanding and why it works for them how they make sense of it.
So no, all i am saying is it is true for me, it makes sense to me, it is right for me. i do not impose that on anyone else. that is proselytizing, i don't do proselytizing. i fully acknowledge there are many paths to God. there is no single "right" way or "only" way or "true" way. each individual has to determine that for themself.
i am saying how i see things, and i am not imposing that on anyone. rather i consistently say over and over if a person does not find it a useful or valid source for themself, to set it aside. like they would any book that is not their cup of tea.
nate and mystic and others can state why it is not useful for them, why it is not "true for them." they can not however say since it is not useful or true for them, therefore it is not useful or true for everybody. that it is not rational or reasonable or accurate for everybody.
to insist "this is the only way, this is the only truth" is at the root of intolerance and bigotry, which is the driving force of any ideology that is rooted in supremacy, superiority, arrogance and hate.
big·ot·ry
noun intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.
that's what i'm saying.
and that's what we see on these boards. a primal incensed feral intolerance towards those with different views.
so nate, Mystic, others, if it is "better" for you, fine go for it.
"Better for everyone" Nope, that is not your place to make that determination.
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 12-10-2017 at 01:17 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
