Thread: Purgatory: Belief in Jesus. Easy, innit Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=001005
Posted by mrmister (# 10850) on
:
Christianity largely sets out its stall on the basis that if you believe in Jesus, you will go to Heaven when you die.
If Jesus' death has atoned for sin is a full atonement, then as is so often quoted of him, "It is done".
It is so often said that Jesus died to save sinners, and that we cannot be perfect, and that our moral attempts do not save us.
It seems to me that if God died on the cross to save us, that it would consequently make little sense to be picky about dogma or morality - given the nonjudgmental and forgiving stance.
Therefore, I can't help but wonder why so many Christians find it not only difficult to believe that one need only believe in Jesus to be saved (and nothing more), but are openly hostile to the idea - in the words of the Bible, are they jealous of God's grace?
Putting aside the obvious issue of theodicy (as opposed to ignoring it), I can't help but wonder why 33,380 denominations can't stop tinkering with the idea of the gift of free mercy and grace.
Isn't it enough that we all have to put up with each other for a century or so?
And what is belief? I don't recall ever reading a definition of what belief internally actually is. There is the usual line about faith being the certainty of things not seen, but what is certainty but, again, a faith issue? Personal, subjective, unmeasurable in a human-to-human sense?
Why must adherents of any religion dogmatically assert their beliefs in order to hold them?
Why must dogma be agreed anyway?
What one believes is, after all, what one believes oneself - not what one's next door neighbour believes. It's all internal.
I am reminded of a bumper sticker that says, "I'm a militant agnostic - I don't know and you don't either."
It seems to me somewhat odd to believe that God's decisions should rest on my, or anyone else's, perceptions of them; and altogether more empathic to understand faith in its common, everyday sense:
Do I have faith in God? Do I trust his motives? Do I actually believe that he did it? Do I actually trust that he's OK with me?
It seems to me that none of that is dependent on church, or fellowship with christians, or praise hymns, or bible reading... because it's about internal beliefs.
Given any person X, would person X believe that God is A, B or C?
The historicity and morality etc. of the Bible are issues which have long been discussed, by individuals such as Thomas Paine in The Age of Reason, Robert Ingersoll's excellent works, Bertrand Russell in Why I Am Not A Christian, and more recent individuals such as Ken Humphries.
These issues are well known.
My gut instincts are:
If Christianity is true, then belief in Jesus is all that is required - which is a heart thing and to be subject neither to inquisitions nor to personal guilt or suspicions; it does not require being moral, nor does it require seeing actions as sinful since sin has been atoned for.
Sin would, in my opinion, have been dispensed with on the cross.
One could speak of the morality of issues only with a hypocritical voice, in my opinion. Far better to just be oneself, whomever that might be. If God isn't judging us, why should we need to?
Let us assume for the moment that Jesus set a good moral example.
Then, in my belief, it is not necessary to follow this good moral example; merely to believe in Jesus.
And what a paltry thing this is, belief in Jesus.
Putting aside the usual rational objections to a corpse getting up and walking around, or to a man stepping onto a cloud and whooshing up to Heaven elevator-style like some Baroque Saint,
Christianity is not hard.
It's the Christians that are hard, in my opinion.
When you're on the outside, they tell you Believe and be saved! When you're on the inside, they tell you unless you measure up you're for it - either in terms of loss of rewards in Heaven (which, given the parable of the workers in the field receiving the same wages, as well as plain old common sense, I find laughable) or in terms of going to Hell itself.
Personally I think God dying on the cross should also signify the death of religion and religiousness.
Thoughts? Comments?
[ 27. February 2006, 22:46: Message edited by: Duo Seraphim ]
Posted by dinghy sailor (# 8507) on
:
quote:
It seems to me that if God died on the cross to save us, that it would consequently make little sense to be picky about dogma or morality - given the nonjudgmental and forgiving stance.
You're getting it the wrong way round. Once you've met someone as great as Jesus, you'll see the sense in following him. So anyone who acts as if they don't, can be suspected of never really meeting him in the first place (this is probably worth a thread in itself.)
quote:
Why must adherents of any religion dogmatically assert their beliefs in order to hold them?
Well if as you said at the start, you believe in Jesus to get to Heaven, and people think that Heaven is a good place to be, it would make sense to convince other people of Jesus' Godliness as well, so they can go there too.
quote:
What one believes is, after all, what one believes oneself - not what one's next door neighbour believes. It's all internal.
No it's not. Your beliefs are yours, noone elses, but noone's beliefs were formed in a vacuum. The people and events around you will always affect what you believe. I liked what Duck said ages ago, that it's not so much she tries to evangelise on first meeting people, but that she can't help it being obvious to them she's a christian.
quote:
If Christianity is true, then belief in Jesus is all that is required - which is a heart thing and to be subject neither to inquisitions nor to personal guilt or suspicions; it does not require being moral, nor does it require seeing actions as sinful since sin has been atoned for.
So you think it's okay if I decide that because of Jesus' death, it doesn't matter what I do, so I'll start torturing people. Starting with you.
quote:
Sin would, in my opinion, have been dispensed with on the cross.
I don't see why. Explain this, please.
quote:
One could speak of the morality of issues only with a hypocritical voice, in my opinion. Far better to just be oneself, whomever that might be. If God isn't judging us, why should we need to?
Why? As discussed on the Brother Andrew thread, being hypocritical is setting one standard for yourself and another for other people. I set the same standard for both - God's standard. I freely acknowledge that I'm crap at living up to it.
quote:
Christianity is not hard.
It's the Christians that are hard, in my opinion.
Indeed.
[ 05. February 2006, 10:14: Message edited by: dinghy sailor ]
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on
:
quote:
If Jesus' death has atoned for sin is a full atonement, then as is so often quoted of him, "It is done".
That's a big "if" mister. Don't expect everybody to agree with you.
Posted by mrmister (# 10850) on
:
quote:
Once you've met someone as great as Jesus, you'll see the sense in following him. So anyone who acts as if they don't, can be suspected of never really meeting him in the first place
Who are you to tell anyone they don't believe what they believe?
That's precisely my point.
It is immaterial what your opinion of another's belief is, although you may hold whatever opinions you wish.
quote:
it would make sense to convince other people of Jesus' Godliness as well, so they can go there too.
It's not required for entry to heaven, though.
And who says that "convincing" others of Jesus works?
quote:
noone's beliefs were formed in a vacuum.
Whether or not someone is willing to accept belief X depends on themselves, and that IS internal, although of course that will be to some extent at least determined by a set of social parameters present since birth.
Whether or not a historical figure Z fits X is another thing altogether, and it is at that point that historicity and morality etc etc can jump in.
quote:
I liked what Duck said ages ago, that it's not so much she tries to evangelise on first meeting people, but that she can't help it being obvious to them she's a christian.
I say, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I'm not sure how someone "accidentally" points out to someone that they believe in the risen Christ, but far be it from me to comment on that.
quote:
So you think it's okay if I decide that because of Jesus' death, it doesn't matter what I do, so I'll start torturing people. Starting with you.
Unfortunately, yes. As Martin Luther said, "No number of adulteries or murders can tear someone away from Christ Jesus"
I don't believe that God forgave us as some kind of second chance to be holy.
I believe he forgave us as a free, undeserved gift. Inviting the poor and lame and blind to the feast, as it were, because the princes wouldn't come.
quote:
Sin would, in my opinion, have been dispensed with on the cross.I don't see why. Explain this, please.
I believe Jesus atoned fully for the sins of the world on the cross through his death offering.
So for me, it's done.
Sin is a technical term to do with the breaking of Torah - "chet" in Hebrew, the word for sin, means to miss the mark, as in an arrow missing its target. Sin need not have a moral component, although it often coincides with immorality - for example, touching a priest's candlestick was sinful in Torah.
You may disagree on that - that's your right - but that's what I believe.
quote:
As discussed on the Brother Andrew thread, being hypocritical is setting one standard for yourself and another for other people. I set the same standard for both - God's standard. I freely acknowledge that I'm crap at living up to it.
I don't pretend to be able to live up to God's standard - on this we seem to agree.
You may set God's standard for both, setting up a recipe for failure - yours and others';
I myself do not judge on this basis.
God has forgiven freely. Who am I to ask that anyone measures up when I myself cannot? And if God, who is perfect and measures up to his own standards, nonetheless forgives us when we so demonstrably cannot live up to his standards, we would be like the ungrateful servant were we, who fail so demonstrably, to insist on others' compliance with a morality we ourselves find too great a burden to bear.
Judge not, lest ye be judged.
Posted by mrmister (# 10850) on
:
I should clarify that when I wrote, "I don't believe that God forgave us as some kind of second chance to be holy", I was referring to our being holy as the result of our own actions.
I believe that God gives us the righteousness of Christ, his own righteousness, as a free undeserved gift.
Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mrmister:
Christianity largely sets out its stall on the basis that if you believe in Jesus, you will go to Heaven when you die.
Does it really? How interesting.
Posted by mrmister (# 10850) on
:
Opium of the masses...
Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on
:
As a licensed opium dispenser I believe (a.) that people who don't believe in Jesus can get to heaven and (b.) that it is possible to believe in Jesus and, God forbid, not get to heaven. So I think its all a little more complicated than the OP suggests.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mrmister:
Christianity largely sets out its stall on the basis that if you believe in Jesus, you will go to Heaven when you die.
As DoD just said, does it?
quote:
If Jesus' death has atoned for sin is a full atonement, then as is so often quoted of him, "It is done".
As andreas said, that's a big if.
quote:
It is so often said that Jesus died to save sinners, and that we cannot be perfect, and that our moral attempts do not save us.
It's often said, but is it true?
quote:
Thoughts? Comments?
My first thought is that your thesis is founded on several contentious issues that could probably be debated at length. I just picked up the first three (what can I say, all those three point sermons has drummed up the importance of three points).
If those points open up big questions then "belief in Jesus" isn't a simple thing to describe. It may be, and indeed I believe it is, that belief in Jesus is open to all regardless of whether or not they've figured out what it means. But, if you're going to open it up on a discussion forum like this then it can't be simplified.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
The parable of the sheep and goats in Matthew suggests things may be contrary to the OP.
I'll need a double fix this week, DOD.... can you spare a bit?
Posted by mrmister (# 10850) on
:
To Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
You might think that, I don't; nor does the existence of your belief necessarily disprove mine.
Just a thought
[ 05. February 2006, 11:50: Message edited by: mrmister ]
Posted by mrmister (# 10850) on
:
quote:
It may be, and indeed I believe it is, that belief in Jesus is open to all regardless of whether or not they've figured out what it means.
Too right - I believe this too; becoming like children and all that.
I am against dogmatism, although I believe that dogmatism in itself won't get one thrown into the fiery flames if one believes in Jesus...
The idea that God is some nitpicking theological inquisitor is in my opinion crackers.
[ 05. February 2006, 11:53: Message edited by: mrmister ]
Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mrmister:
You might think that, I don't; nor does the existence of your belief necessarily disprove mine.
Although the beliefs are incompatible. So either one is right and the other wrong, or they are both wrong.
mdijon, it'll cost you..
[ 05. February 2006, 11:54: Message edited by: Divine Outlaw Dwarf ]
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
mrmister, you started your OP by stating the beliefs of Christianity. Christians here are saying that they believe otherwise.
Whether you agree with either opinion is beside the point, not all christians believe as you think they do.
DOD, is my credit still good?
Posted by mrmister (# 10850) on
:
quote:
Although the beliefs are incompatible. So either one is right and the other wrong, or they are both wrong.
That doesn't mean you're right and I'm wrong!
Although some belief systems would question the validity of the idea of exclusivity of beliefs, I happen to share it.
Just because you believe something, that doesn't mean that it's true.
I believe that you are right in so far as our beliefs are incompatible;
However, I do not believe you are right about Jesus -
nor do I claim to have the final word on truth, nor need I be such an authority in order to hold my beliefs.
You are welcome to your beliefs; I don't share them though, and that doesn't mean my beliefs are inferior to yours.
Hope that helps clarify things
Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mrmister:
Although some belief systems would question the validity of the idea of exclusivity of beliefs, I happen to share it.
Those 'belief systems' being ones without a dim primary school child's grasp on logic...
Posted by mrmister (# 10850) on
:
quote:
mrmister, you started your OP by stating the beliefs of Christianity. Christians here are saying that they believe otherwise.
Whether you agree with either opinion is beside the point, not all christians believe as you think they do.
No, not all of them share my beliefs.
In fact, most of them don't.
There are 33,380 denominations of Christianity, all of whom squabble over things that are sometimes seemingly important, and at other times are of seemingly trivial importance.
I believe in Jesus.
That's what I believe.
The rest, in my view, is pretty much theological (and sociological) dogmatic banter.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mrmister:
quote:
It may be, and indeed I believe it is, that belief in Jesus is open to all regardless of whether or not they've figured out what it means.
Too right - I believe this too; becoming like children and all that.
Perhaps I didn't phrase the sentance that followed that well enough. I'll try again, because that's really the point at which something can be discussed. We agree that intellectual assent to certain dogmas doesn't save us, and that you can "believe in Jesus" without fully understanding what that means.
That doesn't mean that the meaning of "believing in Jesus" isn't important. You can't expect those who teach others about Jesus to not be concerned that that teaching is accurate. And, the Church (like it or not) is the guardian of the truth about Jesus. Thus, although God isn't "some nitpicking theological inquisitor" there are good reasons why the Church should be - if not in regard to the belief of the people in the pews, certainly in regard to what those people are taught by the Church.
Posted by mrmister (# 10850) on
:
quote:
Those 'belief systems' being ones without a dim primary school child's grasp on logic...
I disagree. Taoism for example, which is not exclusive, has among its logical implications that one is happy to suffer, q.v. the famous "vinegar tasters" painting.
It has not escaped my notice that the Bible encourages believers to rejoice in their sufferings.
I do not appreciate the character attack; just because I don't believe what you believe, that does not mean I'm thick.
Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mrmister:
quote:
Those 'belief systems' being ones without a dim primary school child's grasp on logic...
I disagree. Taoism for example, which is not exclusive, has among its logical implications that one is happy to suffer, q.v. the famous "vinegar tasters" painting.
That's not contradictory. That's masochism..
What you were talking about initially was believing both A and NOT-A to be the case. That's just muddled.
Posted by mrmister (# 10850) on
:
quote:
And, the Church (like it or not) is the guardian of the truth about Jesus.
Actually I don't agree. The Holy Spirit would be the guardian of the truth about Jesus, not the Church in all its bumbling, perverse and hypocritical forms.
The Church, that found one of the major codices of the Bible in a dustbin.
The Church, that decided the canon of the Bible by the most arcane of lunacies - e.g. deciding there should be four gospels because there are four winds etc. etc.
And what is the Church, that it should be a guardian? If it is the people, then we are the church - which is made up of individuals in a relationship with God. If not, then what a sorry state this "guardian" really is in...
If I'm looking for truth, I'm not interested in what some horrible, hypocritical priest has to say on the matter.
"Truth is a black cat in a windowless room at midnight." -- Bertholdt Brecht wrote in The Caucasian Chalk Circle
"What is Truth? said jesting Pilate; and would not stay for an answer." -- Francis Bacon
I'd sooner admit my humanity and trust in God than seek some fictional absolute doctrine in the vaults of any number of corrupt institutions.
I do not need to know whether Our Holy Lord favours the colour blue over Thursday lunchtimes, or what sock size Jesus wore;
or his opinion on whether gay sex is preferable to the misery of celibacy;
or whether he approves of priestly hanky-panky on saturday nights;
It simply does not matter to me whether the Thrice High God in the person of Jesus Christ had faith so strong he could walk on water;
because in the absence of all this so-called "knowledge", even as Paul decided to go amid the gentiles preaching "nothing but Christ crucified",
what matters is the free gift. That believing in Jesus saves.
I believe it's that simple.
Posted by mrmister (# 10850) on
:
quote:
That's not contradictory. That's masochism..
Indeed.
quote:
What you were talking about initially was believing both A and NOT-A to be the case. That's just muddled.
Some belief systems do not hold to that logic; for example, Buddhism.
Personal perception and external truth do not necessarily match;
In still other belief systems, some people believe that people make their own valid truths.
I agree with you that it is nonsensical, but there are those who would believe it - there it is.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mrmister:
quote:
And, the Church (like it or not) is the guardian of the truth about Jesus.
Actually I don't agree. The Holy Spirit would be the guardian of the truth about Jesus, not the Church
That would be the Church that in Scripture and Tradition is described as the Body of Christ and Temple to the Holy Spirit. How do you think the Spirit would preserve the truth of Christ if not through the Scriptures the Church preserved and the teachings expounding those Scriptures so that we could know the truth?
quote:
what matters is the free gift. That believing in Jesus saves.
I believe it's that simple.
I believe that for that phrase "believing in Jesus saves" to have any meaning then we need to know at least three things:
- Who is Jesus?
- What is salvation?
- What does it mean to believe?
Not that simple, is it? Especially if you're going to throw out the teaching of the Church.
Posted by mrmister (# 10850) on
:
Oh, sure it is.
You don't have to be a churchgoer to find out the jist of Christianity.
In any case, there are new translations of the Bible released every year. According to copyright law, I am informed, for a book to be considered new, it has to differ from other existing books by a certain percentage.
Which means that every time a new Bible is published, that's a sure fire sign the thing is being fiddled with -
Just as it was fiddled with in the early church.
Just as it was fiddled with in the Mediaeval ages.
Just as it's still being fiddled with now.
The thing has been changed, fiddled, redacted, chopped up, interpreted, reinterpreted, misinterpreted, mistranslated, paraphrased...
goodness
Take any two versions of the Bible, side by side, and make a concurrent comparison.
The howlers such an approach throws up are often classic
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mrmister:
You don't have to be a churchgoer to find out the jist of Christianity.
No, you just have to accept at least some of what the Church teaches about Christianity. Including, but not limited to, the Bible itself.
quote:
there are new translations of the Bible released every year. According to copyright law, I am informed, for a book to be considered new, it has to differ from other existing books by a certain percentage.
Which means that every time a new Bible is published, that's a sure fire sign the thing is being fiddled with -
Now that seems to be a big red herring. Each translation is, like any other literary work, covered by copyright. But, all they are is translations. No one is claiming that the Bible is changed in translation. Well, no one but you it seems. Translations aim to make the words of the Bible accessible to all, not just the few who read Greek and Hebrew. New translations happen because of several factors, including better understanding of the original language and changes in the language the texts are translated into. If the only English translation we had was the King James we'd be stuck with the inaccuracies of the translation and a form of English that itself needs translating for most English speakers to understand.
quote:
Take any two versions of the Bible, side by side, and make a concurrent comparison.
The howlers such an approach throws up are often classic
Well, of course, reading in more than one translation is a recommended approach to better understanding the text you're reading. I've not come across any howlers in the last twenty plus years of reading passages in more than one translation.
Posted by Curious Buddhist (# 10954) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
No one is claiming that the Bible is changed in translation.
I'd disagree with that last comment. The Bible has changed dramatically, in translation, since the Septuagint.
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I've not come across any howlers in the last twenty plus years of reading passages in more than one translation.
Again, with respect, I disagree. I can think of one particular "howler" (ophthe) as an example but there are many more in the N.T., in particular, grammatical "howlers" which alter the meaning of the original texts.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
But even if this is the case, a serious theologian would want to return to the original text in the original language if there was a serious point of doctrine at stake.
Posted by Curious Buddhist (# 10954) on
:
Yes, Ricardus, I agree with you. But how many do?
And this is fairly pivotal when we're talking about "ophthe" since it's the lynch pin of the Christian faith I would have thought. But the mistranslations remain, apparently without people going back to the Greek to see what it actually said.
[ 05. February 2006, 13:04: Message edited by: Curious Buddhist ]
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
I expect most would - at the very worst, if only to cover their backs so that no other theologian with a good knowledge of Greek or Hebrew can call "Bullshit!" on them.
[Cross-posted with your edit. What is the issue with ophthe?]
[ 05. February 2006, 13:06: Message edited by: Ricardus ]
Posted by Curious Buddhist (# 10954) on
:
The trouble is Ricardus (and I've had this conversation with Christians countless times), some people aren't interested in the original version.
If you Google on "ophthe" you'll find a plethora of arguments about what, exactly, it means, mostly saying different things. However, if anyone has studied ancient Greek, the meaning is clear, it means "I see" as in "I understand, see, what you mean", it does not mean "I physically see you", however the arguments continue and no doubt will continue to do so.
Posted by mrmister (# 10850) on
:
For those who are interested as to the "ophthe" discussion, check out this page:
http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/web/faq/faq097.html
The most obvious example of a howler I can think of is the resurrection itself - about which no translation, no matter how "careful", is even internally consistent, let alone consistent with other translations no matter how well fiddled.
There are even "harmonised" gospels which seek to conglomerate all four gospels as if they were ingredients of a cake to be mixed and half-baked;
and the recent addition of a 100-minute bible to this ever-increasing list only proves the point more...
Posted by Curious Buddhist (# 10954) on
:
Mrmister, good link but I've just had a quick look and I would seriously argue with their claim that "ophthe" meant "appeared to", it simply didn't mean that. It means "I see what you mean" which is different altogether, however, the link is very interesting and I shall read it fully now.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Curious Buddhist:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
No one is claiming that the Bible is changed in translation.
I'd disagree with that last comment. The Bible has changed dramatically, in translation, since the Septuagint.
Well, I don't read Greek. So, I have to rely on the trustworthiness of translators. But, I can't see why commitees of basically honest, intelligent people who are trying their hardest to faithfully convey the meaning of the original Greek and Hebrew into English (or whatever the target language is) would deliberately change that meaning. A few unintentional mistakes, maybe - but they wouldn't result in dramatic changes. And, besides, another group of translators would come up with a correct translation. I just don't see any evidence for widespread deliberate mis-translation.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I've not come across any howlers in the last twenty plus years of reading passages in more than one translation.
Again, with respect, I disagree. I can think of one particular "howler" (ophthe) as an example but there are many more in the N.T., in particular, grammatical "howlers" which alter the meaning of the original texts. [/QB]
Again, saying there are examples doesn't help. If the original text has been altered then that alteration appears in all the translations I regularly use because I've not seen them. There are differences, naturally, and there is a great deal to be learnt by reading the differences and seeing how they alter the meanings of passages. But, none that make any significant difference to what I believe to be the message of Scripture.
Posted by Curious Buddhist (# 10954) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
There are differences, naturally, and there is a great deal to be learnt by reading the differences and seeing how they alter the meanings of passages. But, none that make any significant difference to what I believe to be the message of Scripture.
But Alan, with respect, the mistranslation of "ophthe" does alter things. Surely there's a very big difference between "I see what you mean, I understand what Jesus was talking about" and "I see Jesus, physically standing before me"? The two things mean something different now, for me, it's not that important, because I believe that to say "I understand" is just as valid, but this is not a physical resurrection and this is problematical from a KJV (or subsequent versions) standpoint.
Posted by mrmister (# 10850) on
:
quote:
Well, I don't read Greek. So, I have to rely on the trustworthiness of translators. But, I can't see why commitees of basically honest, intelligent people who are trying their hardest to faithfully convey the meaning of the original Greek and Hebrew into English (or whatever the target language is) would deliberately change that meaning. A few unintentional mistakes, maybe - but they wouldn't result in dramatic changes. And, besides, another group of translators would come up with a correct translation. I just don't see any evidence for widespread deliberate mis-translation.
May I suggest you check out The Jewish Publication Society's translation of Torah?
The differences between the Septuagint and the Massoretic are more than "unintentional mistakes" - we're talking huge swathes of text in the Septuagint that don't exist in the Massoretic etc.
Evidence for widespread redaction deliberately abounds; for example, there are about twenty different ends to the gospel of Mark alone, depending on which manuscript one goes on.
And if you're talking about the manuscripts not having changed, my immediate reply would be that we don't have the originals!
Posted by mrmister (# 10850) on
:
Check out this link for the Hebrew Bible:
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm
Posted by Curious Buddhist (# 10954) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mrmister:
The differences between the Septuagint and the Massoretic are more than "unintentional mistakes" - we're talking huge swathes of text in the Septuagint that don't exist in the Massoretic etc.
I completely agree with you, this is not unintentional, it is a gargantuan mistranslation.
quote:
Originally posted by mrmister:
Evidence for widespread redaction deliberately abounds; for example, there are about twenty different ends to the gospel of Mark alone, depending on which manuscript one goes on.
It's not only the different ends which I've talked about before, the grammar, the misuse of comma's in the beginning of The Gospel of Mark, fundamentally alters its meaning and this is really important and can't just be brushed aside, it fundamentally alters what the N.T. says. Read the Septuagint and you will find a very different story.
[ 05. February 2006, 13:23: Message edited by: Curious Buddhist ]
Posted by Peronel (# 569) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Curious Buddhist:
But Alan, with respect, the mistranslation of "ophthe" does alter things. Surely there's a very big difference between "I see what you mean, I understand what Jesus was talking about" and "I see Jesus, physically standing before me"? The two things mean something different now, for me, it's not that important, because I believe that to say "I understand" is just as valid, but this is not a physical resurrection and this is problematical from a KJV (or subsequent versions) standpoint.
So can you give us chapter and verse as to where this mistranslation happens, as well as two (or more) Bible translations backed by decent scholarship that translate it such that each means something different from the other?
Or are you saying that all bible translations carry the same error in translation? That implies a conspiracy amongst academics to distort the meaning, which is a big claim.
Peronel.
Posted by mrmister (# 10850) on
:
Psalm 37:28
For the LORD loveth judgment, and forsaketh not his saints; they are preserved for ever: but the seed of the wicked shall be cut off.
Or is it the Lord loves the JUST? As this charming wallpaper suggests?
http://wonders.wallpaperdave.com/ps37-28v.jpg
Which is it?
Version differences are NOT minor
Posted by Peronel (# 569) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Curious Buddhist:
It's not only the different ends which I've talked about before, the grammar, the misuse of comma's in the beginning of The Gospel of Mark, fundamentally alters its meaning and this is really important and can't just be brushed aside, it fundamentally alters what the N.T. says. Read the Septuagint and you will find a very different story.
Heh? Mrmister, if I'm understanding him correctly, is talking about fundamental differences between Bible translations. A verse saying one thing in Bible A and another in Bible B.
I'm not sure why pointing out inconsistencies between NT and Septuagint has anything to do with that arguement.
Peronel.
Posted by Curious Buddhist (# 10954) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Peronel:
So can you give us chapter and verse as to where this mistranslation happens, as well as two (or more) Bible translations backed by decent scholarship that translate it such that each means something different from the other?
Or are you saying that all bible translations carry the same error in translation? That implies a conspiracy amongst academics to distort the meaning, which is a big claim.
Peronel.
Hi Peronel,
Ophthe has been mistranslated in most versions that I know of, it's mentioned countless times in the Septuagint, most particularly by Paul but also by others.
The grammatical errors at the beginning of Mark are also there in most common translations but are not there in the Septuagint.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
But Alan, with respect, the mistranslation of "ophthe" does alter things
If I've understood correctly, this is a discussion about one word translated "appeared" or "was seen by" in verses such as 1 Cor 15:5,8. Now, I'm not too sure what the big difference is. There's a slight difference as to whether it was Christ that was actively appearing, or whether it was those who saw him who were the active party. But that seems an extremely petty difference. The Corinthians passage is entirely clear that after Jesus was executed various people, at different times and places, experienced something that they were very clear about being an encounter with the risen Christ.
quote:
Surely there's a very big difference between "I see what you mean, I understand what Jesus was talking about" and "I see Jesus, physically standing before me"?
Yes, there's a big difference. But none of the English translations I know of have anything other than a physical encounter with Christ. I don't see where the first option comes in - I know "I see" in English can mean "I understand", but it's the sort of idiom that doesn't tend to hold true in all languages.
Posted by mrmister (# 10850) on
:
quote:
Or are you saying that all bible translations carry the same error in translation? That implies a conspiracy amongst academics to distort the meaning, which is a big claim.
Correct.
quote:
I'm not sure why pointing out inconsistencies between NT and Septuagint has anything to do with that arguement.
It has everything to do with it, mainly because there is no such thing as the "NT".
Canon continually changes throughout history.
Where I draw comparisons between bible versions, I can equally draw comparisons between manuscripts.
What is published as one neat book in a christian bookshop is in fact a digested, redacted, translated mix of a number of old manuscripts, whose divine authorship were all hotly debated.
Just consider the inclusion of the deutero-canonical books in the Catholic Bible, whereas they were excluded from Protestant canon!
Then there are the obvious references to pseudepigraphica, e.g. the book of Enoch, as well as to a number of books that simply do not exist, e.g. the book of Gad the Seer - which are also referenced by name in the Bible.
One cannot dissociate Septuagint/Massoretic issues from different version issues as if they were two different debates, because in reality they are one and the same debate:
the bible is now, has always been and will continue to be fiddled according to the needs of its adherents
Posted by Curious Buddhist (# 10954) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I know "I see" in English can mean "I understand", but it's the sort of idiom that doesn't tend to hold true in all languages.
Check out ancient Greek, Ancient Greek was a wonderful language, full of nuances of which this is a good example. I would argue (from an academic perspective that to translatate "ophthe" as a physical seeing is wrong, it means "I see what you mean"). In the same way that Ancient Greek had names for shades of different colours, we no longer have these words, neither does modern day Greek by the way, but in Ancient Greek we find these nuances and they are not a secret.
Still, to me, it doesn't alter things as much as the strange grammar at the beginning of The Gospel of Mark, but to some it might make a difference.
[ 05. February 2006, 13:37: Message edited by: Curious Buddhist ]
Posted by Peronel (# 569) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Curious Buddhist:
Ophthe has been mistranslated in most versions that I know of, it's mentioned countless times in the Septuagint, most particularly by Paul but also by others.
Sorry to be thick, but what's Paul got to do with the Septuagint?
quote:
Originally posted by Curious Buddhist:
The grammatical errors at the beginning of Mark are also there in most common translations but are not there in the Septuagint.
Mark quotes Isaiah, so I'm assuming that's the connection with the Septuagint. Are you saying that Mark quotes Isaiah incorrectly - that there are grammatical errors in the original (ie untranslated, rather than first manuscript) of Mark's Gospel? Or are you saying that modern translators - when faced with exactly the same words - handle them differently depending on whether they're in Isaiah or in Mark?
And what's all that got to do with deliberately introduced differences intended to distort meaning in different modern translations? Which - if I'm understanding him correctly - is what mrmister is arguing.
Peronel.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mrmister:
The differences between the Septuagint and the Massoretic are more than "unintentional mistakes" - we're talking huge swathes of text in the Septuagint that don't exist in the Massoretic etc.
Yes, so? We know that. Nothing new, it's been part of the discussion within the Church for millenia as to whether or not those bits of the OT that are in the Septuagint but not the Massoretic are part of the full canon of Scripture or not. Generally the Orthodox (who use the Septuagint as the OT) accept them fully, the Roman Catholics (who use the Massoretic mostly) accept them as "deutero-canonical" because they're in the Septuagint, and Protestants take them a "useful books, but not canonical".
quote:
And if you're talking about the manuscripts not having changed, my immediate reply would be that we don't have the originals!
Of course no. Again, nothing new there. The question is to what extent are the oldest copies we have different from the originals. And, where there are differences to what extent do they affect the understanding of the Bible? Most translations will footnote where there are differences so we can judge that.
Posted by Curious Buddhist (# 10954) on
:
There must have been a conscious desire, at some point, to mistranslate these things, and also to alter the grammar. That's my feeling, yes, it's a big claim, but that doesn't make it any the less valid.
The mistranslations in the N.T. are gargantuan and very odd, to say the least.
and, P.S. Cross-posted to Peronel, no I'm not talking about Isiah or any comments thereupon, I'm talking about the very first sentence.
[ 05. February 2006, 13:40: Message edited by: Curious Buddhist ]
Posted by Peronel (# 569) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Curious Buddhist:
P.S. Cross-posted to Peronel, no I'm not talking about Isiah or any comments thereupon, I'm talking about the very first sentence.
Okay. Then what's that got to do with the Septuagint? And, for that matter, what has Paul to do with the Septuagint?
Peronel.
Posted by mrmister (# 10850) on
:
quote:
Mark quotes Isaiah, so I'm assuming that's the connection with the Septuagint.
No it doesn't!
Consider Mark 1:2-4.
Its first half misunderstand and misattributes Malachi 3:1-4, a messianic prophecy, as referring to John the Baptist, misattributing it to Isaiah 40:3 - which is not even in Isaiah!
In any case, does John the Baptist refine like fire? No! He called people to repentance. The Messiah was to do those things! Matthew 11:10 says it's John.
Biblical footnotes tend to fess up this blunder by referring to Malachi as well as Isaiah.
quote:
Yes, so? We know that. Nothing new, it's been part of the discussion within the Church for millenia as to whether or not those bits of the OT that are in the Septuagint but not the Massoretic are part of the full canon of Scripture or not.
Otherwise known as fiddling the bible to suit the reigning theology.
[ 05. February 2006, 13:44: Message edited by: mrmister ]
Posted by Curious Buddhist (# 10954) on
:
Sorry, what do you mean? The original Septuagint Bible has everything to do with modern translations.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Curious Buddhist:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I know "I see" in English can mean "I understand", but it's the sort of idiom that doesn't tend to hold true in all languages.
Check out ancient Greek, Ancient Greek was a wonderful language, full of nuances of which this is a good example. I would argue (from an academic perspective that to translatate "ophthe" as a physical seeing is wrong, it means "I see what you mean").
But, it would be an extremely strange thing to say in the context of a passage of Scripture that is all about the physical resurrection of Christ, and that the Christian faith is meaningless without it. References to people actually seeing the risen Christ support the whole thrust of the argument. References to people not actually seeing the risen Christ, but coming to understand that he had risen, undermine the whole argument Paul is making. If "ophthe" can be translated as you suggest (something I don't deny) doesn't mean that that's how Paul is using the word here, simply because it turns a coherent argument spread across many verses into nonsense.
quote:
Still, to me, it doesn't alter things as much as the strange grammar at the beginning of The Gospel of Mark, but to some it might make a difference.
I don't really know what this is either. You mentioned something about a comma. Am I mistaken in my understanding that ancient Greek didn't have punctuation as we know it? And, that that is part of the difficulty we have translating Greek because we need to know not only what individual words mean but also how the grammar worked without the sort of punctuation we use. That's before you wrestle with whether or not the Greek used was grammatically good to start with.
Posted by Peronel (# 569) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Curious Buddhist:
Sorry, what do you mean? The original Septuagint Bible has everything to do with modern translations.
Yes, the original Septuagint has everything to do with modern translations of it.
It has bugger all to do - surely - with modern translations of Mark, which were never part of it. That's why I assumed you were referring to the stuff attributed to Isaiah (and mrmister I acknowledge your point on the accuracy of that atribution) but that, I'm pretty sure from memory, is part of the Septuagint.
I'm still not sure how you get from that to showing that there are differences between different modern translations designed to further an agenda.
Peronel
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
OK: on the subject of ophthe:
I'm not a Greek scholar. However, my college library is only a minute's walk away, has an excellent collection of Ancient Greek dictionaries. I consulted:
- Liddell and Scott's Greek-English Lexicon
- Arndt and Gengrich's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament
- E A Sophocles' Greek Lexicon of the Roman and Byzantine Periods
- S C Woodhouse's English-Greek Dictionary
- Lascarides' English-Greek Lexicon
Only (2) is a "Christian" dictionary; the others are intended for Classicists.
The fruit of my researches is that ophthe is some kind of irregular suppletive past tense form of οραν, which is the normal word to "see", as in "to perceive with the eyes". Generally speaking, it's not a good idea to believe everything Google tells you.
Posted by mrmister (# 10850) on
:
The inclusion of the Johannine Comma - the trinitarian verse in 1 John 5:7 I think - is a perfect example of such fiddling.
Or how about reading the translator's prefaces at the front of any bible?
They indicate clear bias of purpose. The translators translate the bible to correct "defects", to promote messages... heck, listen to this from the RSV:
"Because of unhappy experience with unauthorized publications in the two decades between 1881 and 1901, which tampered with the text of the English Revised Version in the supposed interest of the American public, the American Standard Version was copyrighted, to protect the text from unauthorized changes."
That's just one example. There are loads of others.
Bibles are intended to proselytise the message and agenda of those who put them together, plain and simple.
[ 05. February 2006, 13:56: Message edited by: mrmister ]
Posted by Curious Buddhist (# 10954) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
You mentioned something about a comma. Am I mistaken in my understanding that ancient Greek didn't have punctuation as we know it? And, that that is part of the difficulty we have translating Greek because we need to know not only what individual words mean but also how the grammar worked without the sort of punctuation we use.
Alan, it's Aramaic that didn't have tenses or very good grammar, Ancient Greek grammar was very particular. Agreed, it was used in a different way to the way that we would currently use grammar, but to try to imply that it didn't have punctuation is wrong.
With regard to Aramaic, you raise another question totally :
Jesus is risen.
Jesus rose.
Jesus is raised.
None of which are possible in Aramaic.
[ 05. February 2006, 13:55: Message edited by: Curious Buddhist ]
Posted by Peronel (# 569) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mrmister:
Bibles are intended to proselytise the message and agenda of those who put them together, plain and simple.
Although the closest you've got to showing this happening is that some translations say "God loves the just" and some "God loves justice".
As major distortions of meaning go, it ain't much.
Peronel.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
The Johannine Comma has nothing to do with commas as in punctuation.
Also, though it is undoubtedly an interpolation, a.) it was interpolated a few centuries after the doctrine of the Trinity was formulated, b.) it only affected Western manuscripts, c.) it has now been removed from modern translations, except in footnotes.
Posted by croshtique (# 4721) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mrmister:
The inclusion of the Johannine Comma - the trinitarian verse in 1 John 5:7 I think - is a perfect example of such fiddling.
Yet the vast majority of modern translations recognise that the 'comma' only appears once or twice in late (medieval?) MSS and do not include it (or at least just relegate it to a footnote with an explanation).
(edit - said almost exactly the same thing as Ricardus... that's what a Cambridge education will do for ya...)
[ 05. February 2006, 13:59: Message edited by: croshtique ]
Posted by mrmister (# 10850) on
:
You quoted Mark, Peronel.
Verse one says,
"The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God"
A number of manuscripts don't say "the Son of God".
That's just for starters - I could be here all night.
As for the OT, check out the Massoretic and the Septuagint and read them side by side. You can't miss the huge swathes of text in the Massoretic that just mysteriously disappear in the Septuagint and the huge swathes of text that miraculously appear in the Septuagint that were never present in the Massoretic.
It's like almost every other paragraph in places.
It is shocking. Get a copy of Torah, e.g. from Sinai Publishing or the JPS, and compare with a Christian Bible.
Posted by mrmister (# 10850) on
:
quote:
The Johannine Comma has nothing to do with commas as in punctuation.
I never claimed it did! There are two conversations going on here - one about grammar, another about political redaction.
It is coincidence the verse is called the "comma" - it is so named because it appears where a comma should!
No relation to the grammatical discourse.
Posted by Peronel (# 569) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mrmister:
You quoted Mark, Peronel.
Verse one says,
"The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God"
A number of manuscripts don't say "the Son of God".
That's just for starters - I could be here all night.
Yes, agreed. I know this because it says so in the footnotes of my bibles (I have a number of translations) and I would guess every reputable bible out there.
So as evidence of a deliberate agenda to distort the meaning of the original it simply doesn't hold water. If the translators wanted to change the meaning of the original (and you'd agree, I assume, that some early manuscripts do include "the son of God") then they wouldn't include the footnote.
Seems like academics giving a likely translation whilst acknowledging differences in different manuscripts. Certainly not convincing as evidence to mislead.
Peronel.
[ 05. February 2006, 14:05: Message edited by: Peronel ]
Posted by croshtique (# 4721) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mrmister:
You quoted Mark, Peronel.
Verse one says,
"The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God"
A number of manuscripts don't say "the Son of God".
That's just for starters - I could be here all night.
'tis true; but the point of NT textual criticism is to attempt to work out what the original text said, and at the same time explaining why variant readings may have arisen. For Mark 1:1 it could be merely an oversight in copying (a common result of using abbreviations for Christological titles) or perhaps the natural tendency to expand such titles. In my Greek NT the words 'son of God' are left in square brackets because on the one hand a number of important MSS contain it, but on the other i is hard to explain why a Christian scribe would omit it.
Posted by mrmister (# 10850) on
:
Nonsense - at some point, the phrase appeared, or was excised from the manuscripts depending on how you see it.
At some point, someone fiddled it. The only reason to fiddle such a phrase is agenda.
End of.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
Yes, 'cause it's totally impossible that a copyist could ever make a mistake. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Posted by mrmister (# 10850) on
:
That was to Peronel by the way!
I don't believe that a Christian scribe would leave out "the Son of God" or mistake the abbreviation - this was all they did, every day, all day, as their act of lifelong devotion to God.
I doubt that they would have mistaken such a thing, although it is remotely possible in the lunatic scheme of things - but if that is possible, how much less trustworthy is the whole book!!
Posted by croshtique (# 4721) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mrmister:
Nonsense - at some point, the phrase appeared, or was excised from the manuscripts depending on how you see it.
At some point, someone fiddled it. The only reason to fiddle such a phrase is agenda.
End of.
What agenda? If they did have such an agenda why would some manuscripts omit 'Son of God' in Mark 1:1 but fail to excise all other references to Jesus as God's son?
Posted by mrmister (# 10850) on
:
But "God's Son" does not necessarily imply divinity.
Israel is referred to as God's Son Hosea 11:1
Angels are referred to as the Sons of God e.g. Job 38:7
Kings of Israel are referred to as Sons of God 2 Sam 7:14
Righteous people are referred to as Sons of God Wisdom of Solomon 2:15
And what of Numbers 23:19, which says that "God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should repent"?
Works both ways, dude
Posted by croshtique (# 4721) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mrmister:
But "God's Son" does not necessarily imply divinity.
Israel is referred to as God's Son Hosea 11:1
Angels are referred to as the Sons of God e.g. Job 38:7
Kings of Israel are referred to as Sons of God 2 Sam 7:14
Righteous people are referred to as Sons of God Wisdom of Solomon 2:15
And what of Numbers 23:19, which says that "God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should repent"?
Works both ways, dude
For the purposes of this discussion I'm not interested in what 'god's son' particularly means.
What kind of agenda do you think someone has if they remove 'son of God' from Mark 1:1 yet are perfectly willing to leave in Mark 1:11 ("You are my Son..."), Mark 5:7, Mark 15:38 etc.? It's all very well claiming that they have a hidden agenda, but if that's the case they didn't do a very good job.
Posted by mrmister (# 10850) on
:
Nobody said they were perfect propagandists.
Bodging up was rife in the plagiarist, sensationalist past.
For example St. Augustine of Hippo and his miraculous one-eyed monsters of Ethiopia.
Fake relics, lies, political alignments, you name it, it's all been done.
The divinity of Jesus was hotly debated in centuries past; it may have been a disgruntled monk or a subversive or a political doing.
Who knows. Who cares.
The point is, the book is not exactly a reliable document.
It's a leap of faith to believe the message - one about which one shouldn't really be dogmatic.
Posted by Peronel (# 569) on
:
Mrmister, lets get back to what you originally said:
quote:
In any case, there are new translations of the Bible released every year. According to copyright law, I am informed, for a book to be considered new, it has to differ from other existing books by a certain percentage.
Which means that every time a new Bible is published, that's a sure fire sign the thing is being fiddled with -
Just as it was fiddled with in the early church.
Just as it was fiddled with in the Mediaeval ages.
Just as it's still being fiddled with now.
So where's your evidence of "new Bible['s being] published that have been - in your own words - "fiddled with"? Because, on the basis of what you've said so far, I'm not seeing it.
quote:
Take any two versions of the Bible, side by side, and make a concurrent comparison.
The howlers such an approach throws up are often classic
So, where are these classic howlers? You've yet to produce one of any significance.
Is there any substance to back up your arguement? Or is it simply that you believe the Bible to be unreliable?
Peronel.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mrmister:
As for the OT, check out the Massoretic and the Septuagint and read them side by side. You can't miss the huge swathes of text in the Massoretic that just mysteriously disappear in the Septuagint and the huge swathes of text that miraculously appear in the Septuagint that were never present in the Massoretic.
Yes, but that's not a translation issue. The OT is essentially a compilation of oral traditions. AIUI the Hellenic Jews who used the Septuagint added some of their own oral traditions. It is no different in principle from the Christians adding the New Testament to the canon of Scripture.
In any case, I'm not sure how much practical difference it makes. What doctrinal issues rest on these additions?
Posted by croshtique (# 4721) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mrmister:
Nobody said they were perfect propagandists.
I'm saying in this case it's far, far more likely that a couple of copyists made a simple error as opposed to them setting out to wipe out all traces of Jesus's divine sonship and then getting bored after fiddling with the first verse of Mark.
Posted by mrmister (# 10850) on
:
There is lots of substance, but it's not for you to ask me to do your homework for you.
I have a lot of things I need to do as well as on here, and limited time in which to do it in.
The differences are trivially easy to find - if you would care to put a little effort of your own in, the information is easy to find.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
p.s. I also don't take kindly to your tone, implicit to which is the suggestion that unless I furnish perfectly watertight evidence for everything I say on here that I must be talking nonsense. This isn't a postgrad research seminar, it's a bulletin board.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mrmister:
quote:
The Johannine Comma has nothing to do with commas as in punctuation.
I never claimed it did!
Yes, sorry about that - I thought somebody did, but the conversation was going too fast for me, and I was mistaken.
Posted by croshtique (# 4721) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mrmister:
There is lots of substance, but it's not for you to ask me to do your homework for you.
...
p.s. I also don't take kindly to your tone, implicit to which is the suggestion that unless I furnish perfectly watertight evidence for everything I say on here that I must be talking nonsense. This isn't a postgrad research seminar, it's a bulletin board.
It's not about us doing your homework; it's about backing up what appear to be sweeping generalisations with some evidence.
Posted by mrmister (# 10850) on
:
Ah yes, the common ShipOfFools paranoia about "sweeping generalisations" - aka having an opinion of one's own.
Do your own reading! It's not hard, and you'll most likely benefit more from reading it for yourselves than you would from me quoting chapter and verse.
If you choose to utterly dismiss everything I'm saying, it's no skin off my nose.
I will continue to believe in God without the condescending sanctimony of priests, churches - or self-appointed academics - approving of what I believe.
Posted by Peronel (# 569) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mrmister:
There is lots of substance, but it's not for you to ask me to do your homework for you.
<snip>
The differences are trivially easy to find - if you would care to put a little effort of your own in, the information is easy to find.
quote:
Originally posted by mrmister:
Do your own reading! It's not hard, and you'll most likely benefit more from reading it for yourselves than you would from me quoting chapter and verse.
The thing is, this comes over as you not having any evidence.
After all, how hard would it be - assuming you have the information to hand - for you to produce half a dozen examples where verse X in Bible A says something completely different in Bible B?
quote:
Originally posted by mrmister:
I also don't take kindly to your tone, implicit to which is the suggestion that unless I furnish perfectly watertight evidence for everything I say on here that I must be talking nonsense.
As a rule of thumb, the more controversial your claim, the more likely you're going to be asked to produce some evidence to back it up.
So if you wanna argue - for example - that Paris is the capital of France, then I doubt anyone will ask you to prove it.
If you want to argue that there's a conspiracy of academics fiddling with Bible translations in order to distort their meaning, then you need rather more evidence to be convincing.
Doesn't mean you have to produce that evidence, of course. But if you don't, don't be surprised when I and others greet your opinions with a certain amount of scepticism.
Peronel.
Posted by mrmister (# 10850) on
:
Would that include the controversial claim that some jewish carpenter two thousand years ago was actually god, got crucified to death but rose from the dead so that everyone could live forever in heaven for the rest of forever?
Exactly what evidence would you expect for a claim of THAT magnitude?
I simply have neither the time nor the wish to become an evangelist for sceptics. It leaves a bad taste in my mouth, I have better things to do with my time, and no offence but it's fairly obvious the bible has been fiddled - a somewhat cursory reading could lead to that conclusion.
If you don't wish to check it out for yourself, fine, but if you're just going to suggest I'm making sweeping generalisations and that I'm a thicko then expect discussion to end.
Posted by mrmister (# 10850) on
:
Here's a website for you to read and no doubt disagree with
"Occasions where The Septuagint Is Quoted in the New Testament against the sense of the Hebrew text"
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Pines/7224/Rick/Septuagint/splist1.htm
Posted by Peronel (# 569) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mrmister:
"Occasions where The Septuagint Is Quoted in the New Testament against the sense of the Hebrew text"
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Pines/7224/Rick/Septuagint/splist1.htm
I don't think anyone would dispute that on occassion NT writers misquoted/misattributed their scriptures. Whether that was ignorance (I know I don't get 100% accuracy in my quoting of the bible, which is one reason I try and avoid proof-texting) or deliberate misuse is less clear, although I have my suspicions with Paul.
I don't see, though, why that has any bearing on whether modern scholars producing today's translations fiddle with the text. It simply isn't relevant.
Peronel.
Posted by mrmister (# 10850) on
:
Try reading alongside each other the NIV, the Good News Bible, the New Living Translation, and the RSV side by side.
Then read the JPS Tanach.
You should see what I mean after reading.
But you need to do the reading.
Posted by Peronel (# 569) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mrmister:
If you don't wish to check it out for yourself, fine, but if you're just going to suggest I'm making sweeping generalisations and that I'm a thicko then expect discussion to end.
I don't think I've suggested either of those things. I've simply asked you to provide evidence for your assertions.
Peronel.
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on
:
I agree with mrmister that we are assuming too much if we think a term such as "Son of God" necessarily meant the same thing to the people who wrote it as it does to modern people. As N.T. Wright points out in "Jesus and the Victory of God" the terms "Son of God", "King of the Jews" and "Messiah" would likely have been interchangeable references to the anointed of Israel and don't carry the divine connotation later placed on "Son of God".
Though it has a long pedigree in Christianity, dating to Romans 10.9, I've never been able to accept that salvation, however it is understood could be based on mere belief as we use the word in modern English. On a life changing faith which differs profoundly from mere belief, perhaps, so I personally doubt that belief in Jesus on its own can be an authentic part of original Christianity. After all, Satan and the demons believe.
Posted by mrmister (# 10850) on
:
I've given you my reply. I'm not a circus dog - feel free to do your own background reading.
Posted by mrmister (# 10850) on
:
quote:
On a life changing faith which differs profoundly from mere belief, perhaps, so I personally doubt that belief in Jesus on its own can be an authentic part of original Christianity. After all, Satan and the demons believe.
I personally doubt that your life-change can be so profound as to make you perfect.
If you're not perfect, you fall short of God's perfection.
In which case, your righteousnesses are as filthy rags in His sight - whoever is guilty of breaking the Law in its tiniest detail is guilty of breaking the whole law.
Yes, Satan and the devils believe - but the Son of Man died not for angels, but men. They do not benefit from the cross, so that argument doesn't hold water.
Believers are not better than others - they're just forgiven.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
The signifiance of 'ophthe' is much more than whether Jesus 'appeared to' or 'was seen by'. Willi Marxsen's 'The resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth' argues that ressurection is a subjective event in the mind of the early church - more of less on the lines of John Brown's body lies a mouldering in the grave but his soul goes marching on - Jesus is dead but his mission is ours to carry on: The Christ WAS Jesus, NOW it's us.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mrmister:
Try reading alongside each other the NIV, the Good News Bible, the New Living Translation, and the RSV side by side.
Mrmister, are you familiar with the concept of "translation loss"? The problem is that it is impossible to translate exactly from one language to another. A word in one language will often cover a slightly different semantic field from its nearest equivalent in another. The challenge is to find the best approximate, not the exact equivalent.
E.g. Latin has two aspects in the past tense - perfect (amaui) and imperfect (amabam.) Spanish has three - perfect (he amado), imperfect (amaba), and preterite (amé). So any translation into Spanish of a Latin past tense will necessarily be making an aspectual distinction that is not present in the Latin, simply because the Spanish language forces such distinctions to be made. I use Latin and Spanish as an example because I am most familiar with Romance linguistics, but similar points hold for any pair of languages.
Different translators will try to minimise translation loss in different ways. Hence different translations exist.
[ 05. February 2006, 15:42: Message edited by: Ricardus ]
Posted by Fauja (# 2054) on
:
mrmister, you have made an important distinction between opinion and faith in your OP.
What we believe is not the same as who we believe. Jesus never said that following him would be easy, you need to count the cost. You will only make the task harder for yourself if you have expectations of other people that you are not prepared to live by yourself. I am trying to say this with respect, not wanting to go beyond what I would say in person to your face - an all too easy cop-out in this internet age!
Posted by Peronel (# 569) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mrmister:
Try reading alongside each other the NIV, the Good News Bible, the New Living Translation, and the RSV side by side.
I've read widely in three out of these four, often bouncing between them to get a different perspective as I study.
I haven't come across anything that strikes me as deliberate "fiddling" by the translators. Difference of phrasing, yes. Occassionally prioritising one source over another, but footnoting the rejected one, then sure. Areas where the exact meaning of the original is problematic - often due to the problems of mapping the origional tenses onto our own - sure. But deliberate distortion?
So, assume I'm stupid. Point me towards a few (say half a dozen?) Bible verses that illustrate your point that modern translations have been fiddled with to push an agenda. Show me the disagreements. Show me the howlers.
Because so far I'm not seeing them.
Peronel.
Posted by mrmister (# 10850) on
:
quote:
You will only make the task harder for yourself if you have expectations of other people that you are not prepared to live by yourself.
Whoa. I expect nothing of others' morality, nor do I judge myself; nor do I claim to be good, nor do I deny the gift of imputed holiness, nor do I deserve it.
Do not accuse me of something I've not done.
I believe in Jesus, the resurrected incarnate God who died to save, in the gift of free undeserved mercy and grace, total forgiveness and blessedness in heaven.
I do not say others need be moral to believe, nor is it kind to hurt others, nor will hurting others prevent them from being saved, nor should it.
Justice is what demanded death in the first place.
If God is gracious, so must I be, and so should I be.
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mrmister:
I believe in Jesus.
That's what I believe.
The rest, in my view, is pretty much theological (and sociological) dogmatic banter.
If Jesus' sacrifice does not require from us reaction or change beyond acceptance of truth of the event - what is the point ?
Posted by mrmister (# 10850) on
:
quote:
I've read widely in three out of these four, often bouncing between them to get a different perspective as I study.
No. Bouncing between them isn't good enough.
Sit down with a pad of A4 and a pen, and the books in front of you. Make as many columns as there are bibles you're looking at. Turn to, for example the gospels, and read them simultaneously. As you do, notice any differences between the translations. Write them down.
By the end of this exercise, you will have page upon page of problems.
Me sitting here quoting "blah blah blah" will not convince you. All that will happen is I'll provide some texts, you'll refute them, and you'll do that for each case.
But that will be missing the point: you need to see the big picture. You need to see page after page of problems, in your own handwriting, on a page that you've invested effort in making.
You need to actually see that although one problem could feasibly be resolved - or perhaps at a stretch two - the likelihood of these so-called "reasonable" explanations being an acceptable excuse for page after page of problems is vanishingly small.
In fact, I would suggest you attempt this first of all with the resurrection account - with just one Bible. Six columns (four for the gospels, one for 1 corinthians, and 1 for acts) - and write down a blow-by-blow account of what happened on the resurrection.
I really do suggest you try these exercises, as it will show you vividly major problems with the Bible both within the same version, and between versions.
It is worth the investment of effort.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
Even easier, do what I did earlier with the 1 Corinthians verses related to "ophthe" and go to one of the online sources which will highlight the differences between translations. All in a different colour. Which, in the 1 Corinthians case showed no difference whatsoever; some versions calling Peter "Peter", and others "Cephas" being it. Hardly what you are claiming.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
Mrmister,
Might I suggest you do a similar exercise with, say, Plato or Aristotle or Virgil or Beowulf or any other text from the ancient world?
Posted by Peronel (# 569) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mrmister:
In fact, I would suggest you attempt this first of all with the resurrection account - with just one Bible. Six columns (four for the gospels, one for 1 corinthians, and 1 for acts) - and write down a blow-by-blow account of what happened on the resurrection.
I entirely agree that there are significant, unreconcilable differences between the Gospels. Not just the resurrection, by the way, but the sequencing of the events of Christ's life, as well as what he said and when he said it.
But - assuming those differences are present in the earliest manuscripts - I don't see how they illustrate that modern translators are fiddling their translations to promote an agenda.
Peronel.
Posted by mrmister (# 10850) on
:
quote:
If Jesus' sacrifice does not require from us reaction or change beyond acceptance of truth of the event - what is the point ?
The point is that you're saved from destruction on Judgement Day by a God who loves you enough to welcome you into Heavenly bliss despite the evil you've done in life that resulted in the death of his only son.
It is not about you being good - you don't stand a chance like that. It's too late. There is a bigger spiritual game afoot. God has stepped in to allow you the chance, should you wish it, of his eternal love. You are of course free to reject it, but rejecting God is not something without consequence.
This is what I believe.
The point of Christianity is that this life is not the point: the gift of life after the resurrection, which we don't deserve given how awful we all are, is where it's at.
Posted by mrmister (# 10850) on
:
Peronel, I knew you'd try and say I was confusing issues.
That is why I said "exerciseSSSSS" (please note the plural)
In one exercise, you're demonstrating biblical internal inconsistency, which you accept.
In an extension of it, you're demonstrating biblical disharmony between versions.
Look at the GNB, the NIV, and the RSV simultaneously.
It's simple. Go read.
Incidentally most Bibles state their agendas openly in their prefaces, as I stated some time ago.
[ 05. February 2006, 16:19: Message edited by: mrmister ]
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mrmister:
I have a lot of things I need to do as well as on here, and limited time in which to do it in.
Yep, we all have other things to do. So what? You started this thread and made the claim. If you don't have the time to follow up on your claims I suggest you might find it helpful to make less claims at once. There's no reason you have to cover everything at once, take your time.
quote:
The differences are trivially easy to find
Good, then it won't take you any time to find some for us. The problem is that most of us here have been reading the Bible in many versions for a long time and not spotted the problems you claim are obvious. I could sit down and read the Gospels in three translations, come back here in a couple of days (assuming I don't actually do any of the other things I'd normally do with my spare time) and still not see the evidence of fiddling by modern translators that you're claiming. So, do us a favour and point us in the right direction. Give us a couple of passages in versions that say something radically different.
Posted by Peronel (# 569) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mrmister:
Peronel, I knew you'd try and say I was confusing issues.
That is why I said "exerciseSSSSS" (please note the plural)
In one exercise, you're demonstrating biblical internal inconsistency, which you accept.
In an extension of it, you're demonstrating biblical disharmony between versions.
LOOK AT THE GOOD NEWS BIBLE. THEN LOOK AT THE NIV. THEN LOOK AT THE RSV.
It's simple. Go read.
If its that simple, then demonstrate it.
You've been arguing for two pages than modern translators have fiddled with their translations in order to push an agenda.
You've said that if you compare the different translations, they're full of howlers.
Yet when asked to substantiate this, you talk about inconsistencies between texts in the septuagint and how those texts are used in the NT. Or about inconsistencies between gospel accounts of the same events. Or about inconsistencies between early manuscripts.
All of which are good and interesting points, but have nothing to do with your original assertion.
Which, so far, you've completely failed to produce any evidence for.
So, if these howlers are so obvious, so widespread and so trivially easy to find, then why not show us some?
Peronel.
Posted by mrmister (# 10850) on
:
oh for goodness sake. quick search throws up this for massoretic vs septuagint:
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/comparisons.html
[ 05. February 2006, 16:24: Message edited by: mrmister ]
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on
:
The translators of the LXX translated the Hebrew MSS that they had to hand. A scroll of Isaiah, in Hebrew, was found at Qumran which matched the LXX and not the MT. There were multiple versions, apparently, of many OT books floating around at the time; one version was chosen as the ancestor (so to speak) of the Masoretic tradition; the other (the one used to make the LXX) died away in the Jewish community.
It's really not difficult to discover these things. Making claims such as that the translators of the LXX "inserted" stuff not found in their originals is wildly irresponsible until one has actually done the research to understand what went on in the translating of the LXX.
Posted by Peronel (# 569) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mrmister:
oh for goodness sake. quick search throws up this:
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/comparisons.html
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
And for the umpteenth time what do "Comparisons between the Bible and the Septuagint", as that page is entitled, have to do with the argument that modern scholars are fiddling with their translations?
Especially as the latest translation given on that page is the KJV, dating from the 17th century, and known to be less accurate than modern translations simply because it translated using the best documents available then, and we have access to earlier and better sources. The 17th C is hardly "modern" so does nothing to back up your arguement that modern translations are being fiddled.
Peronel
[I note in passing that that page dates the Old Testament of the King James Version to 1000 AD. Which is, umm, interesting.]
ETA: Heh? Inbetween his post and mine, looks like MrMister deleted his.
[ 05. February 2006, 16:32: Message edited by: Peronel ]
Posted by mrmister (# 10850) on
:
Check this out.
quote:
Versions Differ (Part One of a Five-Part Series)--Within the last 4 months the editor of BE has been told by 3 professional defenders of the Bible that there is nothing in the Christian faith that depends on any disputed passage in Scripture, nothing whatsoever. Unfortunately for biblicists there is abundant evidence to the contrary. A wide variety of differences among translations, often caused by the manuscripts from which they are derived, are readily available and, generally speaking, can be grouped into 3 broad categories: (1) Differences with respect to how a verse or part of a verse should be translated (Conflicting Translations--CT), (2) Differences on whether or not verses contradict one another (Contradictory Verses--CV), and (3) Differences on whether or not verses or part of a verse should be omitted entirely (Omitted Text--OT).
Link: http://members.aol.com/ckbloomfld/bepart35.html
[Most of quoted text deleted for copyright reasons.]
[ 05. February 2006, 17:01: Message edited by: RuthW ]
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mrmister:
quote:
If Jesus' sacrifice does not require from us reaction or change beyond acceptance of truth of the event - what is the point ?
The point is that you're saved from destruction on Judgement Day by a God who loves you enough to welcome you into Heavenly bliss despite the evil you've done in life that resulted in the death of his only son.
It is not about you being good - you don't stand a chance like that. It's too late. There is a bigger spiritual game afoot. God has stepped in to allow you the chance, should you wish it, of his eternal love. You are of course free to reject it, but rejecting God is not something without consequence.
This is what I believe.
The point of Christianity is that this life is not the point: the gift of life after the resurrection, which we don't deserve given how awful we all are, is where it's at.
Hmm, that is a lot more than 'I believe in Jesus Christ'.
You could found a church on that creed. I wouldn't join it because I disagree with anumber of the implicit assumptions in your post(s).
I think you demonstrate upon this thread the exact reasons for dogma and demonationalism.
You post what you believe and ask us, implicitly, why we (and other Christians) disagree. Then you put forward arguemnts to justify your initially simple statement of belief - creating your own personal dogma. You tell others that they are wrong, implying they should share your beliefs, which is the begining of outreach / evangelism.
Posted by mrmister (# 10850) on
:
Deleted what? I've not deleted anything.
Posted by Peronel (# 569) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mrmister:
Deleted what? I've not deleted anything.
My apologies. Your post - which I quoted in my last - initially appeared after Mousethief's. For reasons I don't understand, it's jumped to the bottom of the previous page. Seeing it gone, I assumed you'd deleted it.
Peronel.
Posted by mrmister (# 10850) on
:
quote:
Hmm, that is a lot more than 'I believe in Jesus Christ'.
No, it isn't.
I don't ask that others believe it, nor do I say it is essential to believe it. I happen to believe it, but I am not God.
I would not "found a church" nor is that a "creed" - there are no creeds as I see it, creeds being worth less than the paper they are printed on.
You are free to disagree.
I do not create personal dogma; I merely note that Christians seek to force their dogma on others.
You asked me what the point is. I told you.
To then attack me for believing in a point is disingenuous at best, spiteful at worst; at no point is it a kind thing to do.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mrmister:
Check this out.
Talk about something totally unreadable! Some nice touches like paragraphs wouldn't be too much to ask would it? Not to mention the question of copyright on that illegible text.
No one here asked you to post someone elses work. In your own words, just give us one passage which illustrates the "howlers" you claim. Chapter and verse would be enough, we're more than capable of reading umpteen translations ourselves of that.
Posted by mrmister (# 10850) on
:
Then go and read.
You're not my supervisor so stop acting like one.
There is ample material for you to be getting on with there.
Now go do the legwork yourself. It's only laziness that's stopping you; asking me to synthesise material myself is a good deal more than providing evidence. I've just given you a taster there. Go read.
Posted by Fauja (# 2054) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mrmister:
I expect nothing of others' morality, nor do I judge myself; nor do I claim to be good, nor do I deny the gift of imputed holiness, nor do I deserve it.
That's fair enough. However, salvation is something that is worked out and not just received. We are given a clean sheet but it's up to us to write something (metaphorically speaking) on it that is consistent with who Our Father in Heaven is. Take these words for example:
Faith without deeds is dead
Some might over-complicate the issues but let's be willing to consider the whole counsel of God and not just the bits we like or like to argue about.
Just to be clear mrmister, I'm not accusing you of anything but I get the feeling from reading your posts that you have difficulty with people who don't respond the way you hoped they would.
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mrmister:
quote:
Hmm, that is a lot more than 'I believe in Jesus Christ'.
No, it isn't.
I don't ask that others believe it, nor do I say it is essential to believe it. I happen to believe it, but I am not God.
I would not "found a church" nor is that a "creed" - there are no creeds as I see it, creeds being worth less than the paper they are printed on.
You are free to disagree.
I do not create personal dogma; I merely note that Christians seek to force their dogma on others.
You asked me what the point is. I told you.
To then attack me for believing in a point is disingenuous at best, spiteful at worst; at no point is it a kind thing to do.
It was an analogy, not an attack. I do not dispute your right to believe what ever you like. I was harking back to the OP and trying to illustrate why I think demominations proliferate. I do not take the terms, 'creed', 'dogma' or 'evangelism' to be insults and was not intending they be interpreted in that way.
N.B. As in: Dogma (the plural is either dogmata or dogmas) is belief or doctrine held by a religion or any kind of organization to be authoritative and not to be disputed or doubted
&
A creed is a statement of belief—usually religious belief—or faith.The word derives from the Latin credo for I believe.
(Definitions from wikipedia)
Please chill out - this is only a discussion.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mrmister:
quote:
Hmm, that is a lot more than 'I believe in Jesus Christ'.
No, it isn't.
So, "believe in Jesus" includes
- belief in Judgement Day (however you define that)
- salvation from destruction on that Day
- our evil resulted in the death of Gods Son
- the point of faith being life after resurrection
Just to list a few points from your statement of belief.
None of which seems to be intrinsic to belief if Jesus.
Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mrmister:
"The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God"
A number of manuscripts don't say "the Son of God".
Indeed they don't. Although 'Son of God' is incontrovertibly a good Marcan christological title, the centurion's declaration at the cross and all that, so once we stop straining at textual gnats and read the gospel as, you know, a book written by an author with a theology, then there is quite a pressing case for the authenticity of 'the Son of God' here. In any case its hardly important for the sense of the gospel or for belief is it?
Posted by Peronel (# 569) on
:
Thing is, mrmister, that page you've linked to doesn't actually even attempt to argue that Bible texts are being deliberately fiddled with. So it really doesn't help.
Plus I can't see anything in that near-illegible screed that I'd call a howler.
Plus its inaccurate. One example, picked at random:
quote:
2 TIM. 3:16 ("All scripture is given by inspiration of God"--KJ, RS, ML, LB, JB, NI, BBE, NAB, TEV, NWT, NAS)
In point of fact, the NIV says:
quote:
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,
And the NAB says:
quote:
All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;
If a page that is drawing attention to minor differences can't even quote accurately, then why should I take it seriously?
Peronel.
Posted by mrmister (# 10850) on
:
quote:
However, salvation is something that is worked out and not just received. We are given a clean sheet but it's up to us to write something (metaphorically speaking) on it that is consistent with who Our Father in Heaven is.
I don't believe that is the case, nor do I believe that it is my position to judge what is consistent with what God would wish and what is not.
"Faith without works is dead" was the heart of a right old ding-dong between James and Paul, who fundamentally disagreed about the nature of salvation. It is only a fundamentalistic mindset that feels these two fundamentally opposed views must tortuously be harmonised.
And what harmony does it result in? "You are not saved by what you do, but by your faith - but only if your faith is strong enough!" Yes, that's right - you can believe in Jesus and be a lovely person, but you'll never be sure that you're not hellbound because you weren't told how strong was strong enough faith! That's even worse than legalism, because at least you can see if you've broken Torah most of the time; how can you see the inside of a man's heart? There are plenty of kind people that don't believe in Jesus. Are you asking people to be perfect? That's back to square one; a life-long drudgery of fear, begging at the cross and pleading the blood and God knows what else. No thanks, that's emotional torture, not love. That's not the Jesus I know.
I am human, just forgiven.
This "worked out" nonsense is the root of so much strife among Christian communities. It is just not necessary to sabre-rattle among people that basically just want to get on with life, telling them that unless they're "writing the right thing ont their clean sheet" then they're not saved, or that they'll be disgraced in Heaven, or not be as blessed as some bugger that's going on about God all the time, or choosing masochistically to suffer rather than just getting on with life.
Posted by mrmister (# 10850) on
:
quote:
So, "believe in Jesus" includes
* belief in Judgement Day (however you define that)
* salvation from destruction on that Day
* our evil resulted in the death of Gods Son
* the point of faith being life after resurrection
No.
Belief in Jesus is belief in Jesus.
I don't believe that belief in any of those doctrines is necessary for salvation: faith, trust, these things are emotions, a relationship state.
I don't believe in a checklist-entry to Heaven.
Just because I believe in those things, that doesn't mean I consider them essentials for salvation. Don't confuse the issue please.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mrmister:
You're not my supervisor so stop acting like one.
No, I'm not your supervisor. Though if I were I'd certainly be strongly suggesting you provide some supporting evidence for your thesis. Unsupported assertions have no weight in academic work, and just make you look silly here. And, asking someone else to do your work isn't helpful either. If I was examining a student thesis where the work was done by someone else then why should I pass it?
quote:
Now go do the legwork yourself.
I'm not the one who needs to support your assertion. If you do some work I'll happily discuss that with you. If all you want to do is make unsupported assertions then fuck off for all I care.
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on
:
Belief as in belief in his existence as a historical person or something more than that ?
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
Hosting
mrmister, I have deleted most of the text you quoted above because the quotation was too long. Long quotations have the potential to be copyright violations, so they should be avoided.
quote:
Originally posted by mrmister:
Then go and read.
You're not my supervisor so stop acting like one.
There is ample material for you to be getting on with there.
Now go do the legwork yourself. It's only laziness that's stopping you; asking me to synthesise material myself is a good deal more than providing evidence. I've just given you a taster there. Go read.
Avoid personal comments and stick to the issues at hand. This post violates the Ship's third commandment.
RuthW
Purgatory host
Posted by mrmister (# 10850) on
:
OK, soz.
I shall try and provide links rather than quotes. How big is too big a quote?
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Belief as in belief in his existence as a historical person or something more than that ?
Which is back where I was on page one
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I believe that for that phrase "believing in Jesus saves" to have any meaning then we need to know at least three things:
- Who is Jesus?
- What is salvation?
- What does it mean to believe?
Which has yet to be addressed.
Posted by mrmister (# 10850) on
:
Alan, where is the evidence to support the assertion that a dead Jewish carpenter is God almighty, rose from the dead etc etc?
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
What sort of evidence are you looking for?
There isn't much to be said that won't be disputed by somebody somewhere. What sort of evidence would you deem acceptable?
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mrmister:
Alan, where is the evidence to support the assertion that a dead Jewish carpenter is God almighty, rose from the dead etc etc?
So believing in the historical existence of a dead jewish carpenter is not enough then ?
Is it enough/too much if you believe that Jesus was a prophet sent by God and so was Mohammed ?
[ 05. February 2006, 17:18: Message edited by: Doublethink ]
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mrmister:
Alan, where is the evidence to support the assertion that a dead Jewish carpenter is God almighty, rose from the dead etc etc?
The existance of the Church based on the belief that Jesus is the Christ, the Second Person of the Triune God, who died in our place and rose from the dead. That seems like substantial evidence. Not proof, of course, but evidence none the less.
And, the Christian Scriptures are a big part of the witness of that same Church to the death and resurrection of Christ Jesus.
Posted by mrmister (# 10850) on
:
Alan, in "The Testimony of Dr Alan Cresswell" you state, just after saying how moved you were that the people at your church read the Bible a lot and hence they were special, that:
quote:
I had come to appreciate that, although founded on ultimately unprovable axioms such as the actual existance of God, on the basis of these axioms the Christian faith was intellectually consistant and provided, at least in the broadest terms, a sensible description of the world I lived in and explained many details of that world.
But there are many other intellectually consistent, sensible descriptions of the world.
Including atheism.
At best, you're just talking about a belief - just like everybody else.
Innit?
Posted by mrmister (# 10850) on
:
You're saying you believe that the Jewish carpenter is God Almighty because the church has been around for a long while and because they have a holy book?
How does that rule out Judaism or Islam, or Hinduism, or any other ancient faith, exactly?
[ 05. February 2006, 17:24: Message edited by: mrmister ]
Posted by Peronel (# 569) on
:
So are you saying that you believe that there's a conspiracy to fiddle with the bible in order to spread an agenda, and thus there are howlers between different versions, and that we should accept that as a faith position?
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mrmister:
there are many other intellectually consistent, sensible descriptions of the world.
Including atheism.
At best, you're just talking about a belief - just like everybody else.
Yes, so what? I accept that I believe in the Christ revealed in Christian tradition and Scriptures. I've never seen any reason to deny that. It's a faith position that can never be proved, nor disproved, and I have respect for those who hold other faith positions that are equally unprovable.
Posted by croshtique (# 4721) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mrmister:
You're saying you believe that the Jewish carpenter is God Almighty because the church has been around for a long while and because they have a holy book?
How does that rule out Judaism or Islam, or Hinduism, or any other ancient faith, exactly?
Some would say it doesn't. But I don't think that was the question.
[ 05. February 2006, 17:29: Message edited by: croshtique ]
Posted by mrmister (# 10850) on
:
quote:
At best, you're just talking about a belief - just like everybody else.
Yes, so what?
Thank you Dr. Alan Cresswell for your confirmation that what you are talking about in your Testimony is not an evidentially provable assertion but is no more than a belief.
Just like everybody else's.
Posted by Fauja (# 2054) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mrmister:
I am human, just forgiven.
And this is the root problem of your theology. You imply that any doctrine that includes the necessity of repentance is too much to accept. Sure, without God, perfection is impossible but faith in Jesus leads to true repentance if it is real faith at all.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
Back to the OP...
quote:
originally posted by mistermister:
If Christianity is true, then belief in Jesus is all that is required - which is a heart thing and to be subject neither to inquisitions nor to personal guilt or suspicions; it does not require being moral, nor does it require seeing actions as sinful since sin has been atoned for.
To quote Matt Redman, "when the music fades, and all is stripped away", I think this is pretty much where I stand, actually.
quote:
originally posted by mistermister:
Why must adherents of any religion dogmatically assert their beliefs in order to hold them?
I don't think my beliefs require me to assert them, dogmatically or otherwise, but I don't find it surprising that I, you, or anyone else actually do assert them. That's what we seem to be doing here, anyway.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Fauja:
You imply that any doctrine that includes the necessity of repentance is too much to accept. Sure, without God, perfection is impossible but faith in Jesus leads to true repentance if it is real faith at all.
I think it all depends what you read into "require" in the part of the OP I have just quoted. There's a distinction to be made between A requiring B and A leading to B.
Posted by mrmister (# 10850) on
:
Fauja:
quote:
And this is the root problem of your theology. You imply that any doctrine that includes the necessity of repentance is too much to accept. Sure, without God, perfection is impossible but faith in Jesus leads to true repentance if it is real faith at all.
Do I detect the scent of burning heretic?
Who are you to discern what is or is not true repentance? That isn't your position. That is for God to judge, not you; nor is it for you to place the seed of self-doubt in a believer's mind, particularly when already penitent!
Eutychus:
quote:
I don't think my beliefs require me to assert them, dogmatically or otherwise, but I don't find it surprising that I, you, or anyone else actually do assert them. That's what we seem to be doing here, anyway.
Yes, I agree.
Posted by Fauja (# 2054) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mrmister:
Who are you to discern what is or is not true repentance? That isn't your position. That is for God to judge, not you; nor is it for you to place the seed of self-doubt in a believer's mind, particularly when already penitent!
Who am I? I am a child of God who understands that repentance is necessary, that's who I am. If you are having doubts about yourself then maybe you should quietly seek God in prayer.
Posted by Peronel (# 569) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mrmister:
Thank you Dr. Alan Cresswell for your confirmation that what you are talking about in your Testimony is not an evidentially provable assertion but is no more than a belief.
Just like everybody else's.
Thing is, what you've been asserting is an evidentially provable assertion.
Or at least one where evidence can be produced and debated over.
Unless you really are argueing that your position that different modern bible translations have been fiddled with and contain major howlers when you compare one with another is just a faith position.
That's certainly how its coming over!
Peronel
Posted by mrmister (# 10850) on
:
quote:
Who am I? I am a child of God who understands that repentance is necessary, that's who I am. If you are having doubts about yourself then maybe you should quietly seek God in prayer.
Ah, I see.
Because I disagree with what you believe, that must mean that I'm doubting myself! Because otherwise, what you write might be untrue. But we've already established that it is true, so...
And because I don't agree with what you believe, that must mean that I don't seek God, because if I did seek God, I'd agree with you, because God's opened your eyes to all this special wisdom which only the Children of God have. We know you're a special Child of God, because you believe you are, so you must be.
And since, because you believe you're a Child of God, which means it must be true, that means that what you think is what God wants, because you believe it, which means it must be true.
So when you say I should seek God in prayer, I should listen, because you're a Child of God, and what you say must be true, because you believe it is.
Well! What a tremendous witness, brother
Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mrmister:
Do I detect the scent of burning heretic?
Oh for goodness' sake! You have posted on a discussion board. You should expect people to discuss with you. This might well involve people disagreeing with you.
I also find it a bit tiresome that you find it acceptable to post endless bold assertions and wild speculations, yet respond to people who find themselves unconvinced by your argument in a deeply passive-aggressive fashion - 'This is just my belief, I'm not trying to force it on you, how dare you insult it'. A neat way to avoid criticism, but hardly the stuff of debate.
Posted by mrmister (# 10850) on
:
More opium, dwarf?
Posted by Fauja (# 2054) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mrmister:
And since, because you believe you're a Child of God, which means it must be true, that means that what you think is what God wants, because you believe it, which means it must be true.
So when you say I should seek God in prayer, I should listen, because you're a Child of God, and what you say must be true, because you believe it is.
Well! What a tremendous witness, brother
Next you'll be saying that your attitude is proof that you are penitent and believe in the necessity of repentance.
Hey, if you can't take it, don't give it.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mrmister:
quote:
At best, you're just talking about a belief - just like everybody else.
Yes, so what?
Thank you Dr. Alan Cresswell for your confirmation that what you are talking about in your Testimony is not an evidentially provable assertion but is no more than a belief.
Just like everybody else's.
Not just like everyone else's. Just like any other internally self-consistent belief structure built upon unprovable axioms. I'd make a distinction against belief structures that are inconsistent, built upon assertions that have been disproved or for which evidence should be available but not provided.
Posted by mrmister (# 10850) on
:
Since you've not provided any evidence other than an old church and a holy book, it's no different from any other belief system with equivalents, Alan.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
I could expand on my beliefs considerably, but what's the point? This isn't a thread discussing what I believe, but your assertions in the opening post and added to since then.
Posted by mrmister (# 10850) on
:
Dr. Alan Cresswell's Testimony isn't any different in status from anybody else's, as I see it.
It's all belief.
You believe Jesus is God, do you? Good, so do I.
But it's not some lofty intellectualism that's behind it, mate; it's belief. Simple as
Posted by Gort (# 6855) on
:
As I see it, Dr. Alan Cresswell's Testimony certainly has a different status then yours, which seems to be (as DOD put it), deeply passive/aggressive. quote:
But it's not some lofty intellectualism that's behind it, mate; it's belief. Simple as
So, is this the conclusion that all these perambulations have led to? I believe that you may eventually discover "faith" is not confined to any particular human system but is limited descriptive term for a basic attribute (or emanation) of God.
Your arguments seem like pounding rocks while wondering whether the hammer is real.
Posted by chemincreux (# 10635) on
:
mrmister
Please bear with me -I've only just come across your thread and I'd like to comment/ask questions on the first 30 sheets. Then I'll try to catch up onthe rest later. I hope that's OK.
Quote: "Christianity largely sets out its stall on the basis that if you belive in Jesus, you will go to Heaven when you die."
If that is true, then Christianity says you will go to Heaven when you die - since you believe in Jesus. Is that right? Is Christianity right about that? If so, what on arth are you so angry about?
Is there anything you want to share about the Jesus you believe in?
Thanks for reminding me about Thomas Paine. I've now reserved "The Age of Reason" in my local library.
Quote: "When you're on the outside, they tell you Believe and be saved! When you're on the inside, they tell you unless you mesure up you're for it..."
Where are you now - on the outside or the inside? Ignore this question if it's intrusive.
With regard to opium (for hoi polloi) I was once also a licenced dispenser. I found that preaching orthodoxically (though I NEVER preached
orthodoxy!) to be a very useful dicipline. There's plenty of good, useful, truthful, healing stuff that can be said without ruffling the Curia's feathers.
But when I had to, so to speak, bawl prophetically, I found my congregations wonderfully amenable. After a sermon condemning homophobia, for instance, I was quietly congratulated by the one person I expectd to demand my resignation. People are often nicer than you think.
Eventually, though, I wanted to point out publicly that, for instance, the Magnificat was a hymn of praise originslly ascribed to Elizabeth, the mother of John the Baptist, not Mary the mother of Jesus. If you read the Old Testament stuff that inspired it, this becomes self-evident.
I discovered other anomalies, which the faithful are frightened of, and found these boards a useful place to discuss them.
Maybe your over-reaction (as I see it)to what's
troublesome about the church will be useful.
But I feel that some of your polemic is not just an academic concern. You're a tad touchy, sometimes. Please don't send this thread to Hell - it's far too interesting.
Of couse the Bible has bee fiddled with. And a good job too. It needs a lot more fidling with.
The New Testament began life as a community's propaganda (Hence The United Society For The PROPAGATION of the Gospel) All propaganda needs to be subjected to the most careful scrutiny possible. Just calling it bollocks isn't doing that. Anyone not prepared to engage in the hard work of testing it is not entitled to comment on it.
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on
:
Originally posted by mrmister;
I personally doubt that your life-change can be so profound as to make you perfect.
I agree, but why should God require us to be perfect? He put us here and knows what we're capable of. You say you're saved because you "believe in Jesus" but several people have asked you to explain what that means. Believe what? That he was born of a virgin and walked on water? That he is God incarnate? That he died for your sins? And you think a mere belief in these theological issues saves?
I have to say that I profoundly disagree. I see salvation more in terms of Micah 6.8 than in any set of theological proposals. "Religion" should be life changing. If you love God you will not want to offend Him. That doesn't mean that you won't sometime because we are human and fallible and God knows that. But we need to humbly acknowledge when we let Him, others and ourselves down through selfish thoughts and actions and rededicate ourselves to doing His will.
You can keep your "belief in" as a means of salvation. It is totally vacuous and a cop out where facing up to our evil selfish impulses is concerned.
Posted by dinghy sailor (# 8507) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Curious Buddhist:
[QB]the misuse of comma's
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
You might want to double check your UBB code before attempting that kind of cheap shot again.
Posted by chemincreux (# 10635) on
:
I'm up to sheet 10 on page 2 (before all the exciting verbal abuse gets under way) - and for me,that's galloping. Apologies for already having duplicated posts puting some of my own points much better.
I'm not at all sure that the bible is reliable - in the way that orthodox christians claim.
But I'm pretty sure that God inspired it, and that he also, from time to time, when we are receptive enough, inspires you and me. God makes the bible more reliable by making us more reliable - and of course by being absolutely reliable himself. He gave us (fairly) reliable brains (though the maker's instructions are sometimes more incomprehensible than the ones I got with this bloody computer). So it's not too difficult to see through some, if not all, of the human errors that the bible is heir to.
He also gave us eyes to see (if you see what I mean, Curious Cucumber), and a back-up sense of wonder, to appreciate the bible's poetry, and what a marvel humanity is; what arseholes some of us are, what idiots others, and what geat men and women others; and what a thoroughly reliable, accurate, uncompromising hoot of a MIRROR it is, if we look at it straight without blinking.
We shouldn't just fiddle with it, IMO - we should blow trumpets and bang drums with it, dance with it, sing with it, have sex with it, for Christ's sake! (Come to think of it, I believe that traditional Jews do, or did, anyway - so I'll amend that to "...for God's sake!" in he interests of ecumenical harmony.
Posted by dinghy sailor (# 8507) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
You might want to double check your UBB code before attempting that kind of cheap shot again.
Very good point, sir.
(sighs)I'll get round to reading and replying propoerly sometime. Why did three pages grow between the first two times I could check it?
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on
:
Dear MrMister,
I'm not sure what the o.p. proposes. Do you mean it all, or is your tongue in your cheek? To me it appears so unconvincing as to be a case of devil's advocacy, straw man argument, or reductio ad absurdam. It is an instructively extreme description of what I'd call "solipsistic Christianity"; and the older I get, the more meaningless it becomes.
quote:
"If Christianity is true, then belief in Jesus is all that is required - which is a heart thing and to be subject neither to inquisitions nor to personal guilt or suspicions;"
But then:
quote:
And what is belief? I don't recall ever reading a definition of what belief internally actually is.
Putting these two statements together, mustn't we conclude that we don't know what, if anything, is required? You have just admitted that "belief" is an unknown. In algebra an unknown is often represented with "x", which symbol would do just as well here.
But let us assume for now that the word "belief" is unambiguous and try to define the word "Jesus" for the purpose of belief in him, her, or it. Now we're really up a creek. What makes this name the key to efficacious belief? Is it the sequence of letters in the written word? Is it the pronunciation? I doubt that these are of the essence, because the name isn't either pronounced or spelled the same throughout Christendom. Furthermore, if either of these were crucial, then the word "Jesus" would be a magic incantation (and hence an example, as the Interpreter's Bible has explained, of "praying as the heathen do" to which Jesus objected).
So I deduce that you are not proposing faith in the word "Jesus," but in some understood meaning of that word. Now let's ask where you get the meaning from. I see three possible sources or repositories of this meaning: (1) Scripture; (2) Personal experience of revelation; or (3) the Church. All of these, I think, have been proposed by various denominations or authorities. Perhaps, of course, (to the extent that "belief in Jesus" is the claimed sine qua non at all) the truth lies in some combination of these, or includes others I have overlooked. But at any rate, hasn't the plot already thickened?
I could comment on the three possible sources in turn but have probably said enough for one post.
Posted by mrmister (# 10850) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
To me it appears so unconvincing as to be a case of devil's advocacy, straw man argument, or reductio ad absurdam. It is an instructively extreme description of what I'd call "solipsistic Christianity"; and the older I get, the more meaningless it becomes.
It's not for you to be convinced or unconvinced by the beliefs of another... that's not your role, nor do you have any inside information on the nature of truth that others are not privy to.
I would encourage you not to write off as meaningless something that is not amenable to your doctrinal or logical dissection - particularly when, with all due respect, the tools are so blunt.
quote:
Putting these two statements together, mustn't we conclude that we don't know what, if anything, is required? You have just admitted that "belief" is an unknown.
Precisely.
That's for God to judge, not us.
But I don't see God as judging us.
As Nicolas Abbagango, the philosopher, said: "Reason itself is fallible - and this fallibility must find a place in our logic."
I do not believe that belief in God is like passing an MCQ test.
I think it is a matter of the heart.
I would also quote "The Son of Man came not for the righteous but for sinners".
As Jewel sang, "What's simple is true" - what I believe is not a "reductio ad absurdum"; that is your logical blunder, not my belief.
Prove the worth of a baby, or of a rose's beauty! Some things just aren't amenable to that approach.
Posted by Posy (# 10858) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mrmister:
Belief in Jesus is belief in Jesus.
I don't believe that belief in any of those doctrines is necessary for salvation: faith, trust, these things are emotions, a relationship state.
What do you understand by "belief" outside the context of faith and trust? Need it extend only as far as believing that a man called Jesus existed? Or that he was divine? or that he did "good things"? Or that we ought to aspire to do similarly "good things"?
None of these beliefs individually or in aggregate have the power to change your life any more than believing (without checking) that there is cheese in the fridge, that it is tasty, that it would make a good quiche and that you ought, therefore, to make a quiche and share it with everyone.
Posted by mrmister (# 10850) on
:
quote:
What do you understand by "belief" outside the context of faith and trust?
What I "understand" is immaterial.
quote:
Need it extend only as far as believing that a man called Jesus existed? Or that he was divine? or that he did "good things"? Or that we ought to aspire to do similarly "good things"?
That's for God to decide.
Personally I don't believe perception of salient "facts" is necessarily important. Take, for example, divinity. Yes, I believe in the divinity of Jesus. But "Ah!" you'll cry. "How exactly do you define divinity? Eh?" and so on.
What does it matter!
quote:
None of these beliefs individually or in aggregate have the power to change your life
I agree.
But beliefs don't do that. People (and God) do.
I believe the gospel concerns freedom from condemnation, and the promise of Heaven, not an insistence on being morally perfect - which, let's face it, the gospel presupposes us not to have achieved in the first place.
I do not believe God compels anyone to be kind, or to be moral, or whatnot.
The very concept of grace and mercy as being undeserved gifts has two elements:
1). they're undeserved - ie. we don't deserve them; and
2). they're a gift - ie. we don't pay for them.
Remember the prostitute who cleaned Jesus' feet with her tears;
and do not raise the gate to Heaven after your own entrance such that only the perfect can enter.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mrmister:
Personally I don't believe perception of salient "facts" is necessarily important. Take, for example, divinity. Yes, I believe in the divinity of Jesus. But "Ah!" you'll cry. "How exactly do you define divinity? Eh?" and so on.
What does it matter!
So, in your statement that "believing in Jesus saves" belief isn't agreement to statements of 'fact'. Which is a move in the direction of helping us to understand what it is that you mean.
Let's call it a partial answer to third of the three questions I raised on page 1. "What does it mean to believe?" in your opinion doesn't necessarily include assent to one or more propositions. Any more thoughts on what 'belief' (of the kind that is salvific) positively is?
You also here address the first of my questions, "Who is Jesus?". You believe that Jesus was divine. But what is it about the divinity of Jesus that belief in leads to salvation? Contra your assertion that it doesn't matter, the nature of the divinity (and, indeed, humanity) of Jesus makes a big difference to the nature of salvation.
Was He just a good man who gave us an example of love to try and emulate? Was He God Himself freely sacrificing Himself for our sins? Is He God experiencing every temptation we face? Or not fully human and so not really experiencing the temptations and pain of life? These are all questions that the Church wrestled with in the early centuries of our existance. Questions that were answered, and those answers summarised in Creeds.
Posted by mrmister (# 10850) on
:
quote:
So, in your statement that "believing in Jesus saves" belief isn't agreement to statements of 'fact'.
Yup. It's just shorthand.
I believe it's God that saves, not doctrinal assent.
In a way the phrase "believing in Jesus saves" is too small, too limiting; I believe it's an emotional, a spiritual thing, not a pernickety one but not something requiring of the inquisition born-againers might infer from this.
quote:
Any more thoughts on what 'belief' (of the kind that is salvific) positively is?
As I just wrote, I believe it's God that saves, not doctrinal assent.
quote:
But what is it about the divinity of Jesus that belief in leads to salvation?
See, this is what I mean by saying that phrase is too tiny. This is the thin end of the wedge - I don't believe in inquisitions. I do not believe God is pernickety like that.
Standing in a garden holding apples doesn't make me an apple tree - neither does voluntary assent to a doctrine mean I really believe it.
Personally I believe God is pouring out his mercy and grace on everybody - the onus is not on us to "win" it by being and continuing to be good but on us by accepting it.
I don't believe it's a hard thing to accept; but I do believe that a lot of people get annoyed by its being easy to accept. As the field owner says in the parable of the field workers who are paid the same wage, "Are you jealous of my grace?"
quote:
Contra your assertion that it doesn't matter, the nature of the divinity (and, indeed, humanity) of Jesus makes a big difference to the nature of salvation.
No, that is YOUR belief. You ought to differentiate between personal belief and objectively demonstrable fact.
quote:
Was He just a good man who gave us an example of love to try and emulate? Was He God Himself freely sacrificing Himself for our sins? Is He God experiencing every temptation we face? Or not fully human and so not really experiencing the temptations and pain of life?
I wasn't there at the time. I have my personal faith, my personal emotional and spiritual beliefs, and that set-of-wooly-concepts-I-willingly-assent-to-about-the-life-of-Jesus, but I don't see enumeration of that set as vital. One doesn't quiz a drowning man as to his beliefs before saving him. Why would God, considering he's doing the same thing, when He's good and we're evil?
quote:
These are all questions that the Church wrestled with in the early centuries of our existance. Questions that were answered, and those answers summarised in Creeds.
Actually the Church ruthlessly suppressed dissent about those questions by burning at the stake people who didn't agree with the views they wanted - the classic example being the Nicene Creed.
Recited every Sunday in churches all over the world, it was written by murderers.
They are welcome to their beliefs but I need not share them to be granted God's mercy and grace - and I do not agree with those who believe I need to.
Forgiveness and getting to Heaven are free gifts of God.
[ 11. February 2006, 15:25: Message edited by: mrmister ]
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mrmister:
I have my personal faith, my personal emotional and spiritual beliefs, and that set-of-wooly-concepts-I-willingly-assent-to-about-the-life-of-Jesus, but I don't see enumeration of that set as vital. One doesn't quiz a drowning man as to his beliefs before saving him.
No, no one would quiz a drowning man before saving him. But, you're not a drowning man needing us to save him. You're simply stating what you acknowledge to be personal beliefs. What I don't understand is why you then object to people quizzing you about those beliefs. This is a discussion board, not a blog.
Posted by mrmister (# 10850) on
:
Your question is a heavily loaded one. Allow me to refresh your learned memory, Dr. Cresswell.
quote:
Contra your assertion that it doesn't matter, the nature of the divinity (and, indeed, humanity) of Jesus makes a big difference to the nature of salvation.
Who are you to say that the nature of someone's belief about Jesus' divine and human nature "makes a big difference" to their salvation?
quote:
These are all questions that the Church wrestled with in the early centuries of our existance. Questions that were answered, and those answers summarised in Creeds.
I find this more than a little condescending, and perhaps even naive. You may feel the Church creedalists who murdered those who opposed them had the inside track on truth, Dr. Cresswell, but I myself do not necessarily agree with them; nor do I believe that the presence or absence of such beliefs matters one jot.
Do you believe everything the Church tells you? If not, where do you draw the line, and why?
quote:
No, no one would quiz a drowning man before saving him. But, you're not a drowning man needing us to save him.
Actually I believe that as a race we are very much like drowning men, in the eschatological sense.
I am heartened to read, Dr. Cresswell, that you would not require a drowning man to agree with you before you saved him.
I do not believe that God would do that, either; which is one of my reasons for not sharing your stalwart faith in Church Creeds.
[ 11. February 2006, 16:18: Message edited by: mrmister ]
Posted by dinghy sailor (# 8507) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mrmister:
quote:
Contra your assertion that it doesn't matter, the nature of the divinity (and, indeed, humanity) of Jesus makes a big difference to the nature of salvation.
Who are you to say that the nature of someone's belief about Jesus' divine and human nature "makes a big difference" to their salvation?
Who are you to say that it doesn't?
Posted by mrmister (# 10850) on
:
He said it first - I replied.
Facts. Yours. Right. Get. Pretty please
Posted by Cheesy* (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mrmister:
Actually I believe that as a race we are very much like drowning men, in the eschatological sense.
I am heartened to read, Dr. Cresswell, that you would not require a drowning man to agree with you before you saved him.
I do not believe that God would do that, either; which is one of my reasons for not sharing your stalwart faith in Church Creeds.
You clearly don't believe in the Christian creeds, therefore I am at a bit of a loss about the basis you intend to carry on the conversation.
You're fully entitled to believe what you like. This happens in your case to be different to the Christian creeds. So?
C
Posted by dinghy sailor (# 8507) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mrmister:
He said it first - I replied.
Facts. Yours. Right. Get. Pretty please
Answer the question.
And anyway, asking me to get my facts right is asking me to believe in your creed.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mrmister:
Your question is a heavily loaded one. Allow me to refresh your learned memory, Dr. Cresswell.
quote:
Contra your assertion that it doesn't matter, the nature of the divinity (and, indeed, humanity) of Jesus makes a big difference to the nature of salvation.
Who are you to say that the nature of someone's belief about Jesus' divine and human nature "makes a big difference" to their salvation?
I'm not really interested in what other people believe per se. The objective truth of the nature of Christ makes the difference. If he was not fully God and fully man then the nature of salvation that the Church teaches is offered isn't possible (not that that rules out alternative forms of salvation).
I believe that the objective basis of our salvation is important. I probably agree with you that we don't actually need to understand that to recieve that salvation. If I can offer an analogy; if salvation is like a bridge we cross then what's important is that the bridge is well built and can bear our weight, we don't need to be a structural engineer who can independently assess the integrity of the bridge to cross it.
Posted by mrmister (# 10850) on
:
quote:
The objective truth of the nature of Christ makes the difference. If he was not fully God and fully man then the nature of salvation that the Church teaches is offered isn't possible (not that that rules out alternative forms of salvation).
Objective truth? Are you mad?
You can't put Christ into a test tube.
Your idea of salvation is unnecessarily dogmatic. You are welcome to it, but as you ironically point out, it's not the only possible view.
When you refer to the Church, you omit to mention that there are 33,380 of them, or at least there were as of 2001.
Don't be quoting Church teaching as if it is divine truth, Dr Cresswell.
As I said some time ago, you have no basis for your belief other than an old church and a holy book.
Just like everybody else.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mrmister:
As I said some time ago, you have no basis for your belief other than an old church and a holy book.
Well, as far as I can tell that's a far better basis for faith than whatever it is that informs your beliefs.
Posted by Jahlove (# 10290) on
:
Posted by mrmister
quote:
Standing in a garden holding apples doesn't make me an apple tree - neither does voluntary assent to a doctrine mean I really believe it.
Why would someone give voluntary assent to a proposition they disbelieve?
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on
:
Golly I thought "voluntary assent meant" - um -- gee, what does that mean? Unless for some reason the phrase "voluntary assent" has some meaning beyond its component parts, which at this point I have no reason to believe, it would mean assent, i.e. agreement, that is voluntary, i.e. not forced; self-chosen.
I self-choose to agree to something I don't believe?
Huh?
Posted by mrmister (# 10850) on
:
quote:
Well, as far as I can tell that's a far better basis for faith than whatever it is that informs your beliefs.
No, it isn't.
Belief is of the heart.
Perhaps you have yet to realise that.
Posted by Cheesy* (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mrmister:
quote:
Well, as far as I can tell that's a far better basis for faith than whatever it is that informs your beliefs.
No, it isn't.
Belief is of the heart.
Perhaps you have yet to realise that.
The heart can be deceived. Maybe you're just too young to have realised that yet.
C
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mrmister:
Belief is of the heart.
Perhaps you have yet to realise that.
Well, that goes back to the "what is meant by 'belief'?" question. I'd say belief has a strong element of mind to it. I can't "just believe", I need to believe in something. For me to believe in something I need to know at least a bit about that something. And, that knowledge is a mind thing. My response to that knowledge may well, of course, be a purely heart felt emotional thing.
Unless you think that what you believe doesn't matter, that everything is subjective, and that whether what you believe has any reality is unimportant. Which is certainly waht some would say, but that doesn't actually leave any room for discussion and we're all wasting our time here.
Posted by mrmister (# 10850) on
:
But Alan, belief IS subjective, that's the whole point.
You need to stop thinking of it as a competition. It's all about the heart. It's about people
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mrmister:
But Alan, belief IS subjective, that's the whole point.
Belief is personal. I believe in something, you in something else. What we believe in is a different category. For a start, what we believe in may be corporate - we may believe in the same thing as other people, or we can believe in something no one else believes in. And, what we believe in may have objective reality beyond our belief - what I believe about Jesus doesn't change who Jesus is.
Posted by mrmister (# 10850) on
:
You can't know truth objectively!
That's just plain epistemology.
If you think you absolutely know objective truth, then the phrase "self delusion" pops into my head.
You don't *know*: you can only believe.
You can no more prove that Jesus is God than you can prove that there is a God.
And as for proof of Jesus being exactly as your personal perception of him represents him to be... dear oh dear. Evidence?
Evidence is what you accept it to be.
Proof is what you accept it to be.
There is no knowable truth, there is only faith.
That is the heart of Pilate's cynical question to Jesus - "What is truth?"
What you seek to do is to start from the position that you are not only right, but that you can prove that you are, and also that others are wrong.
Those three things are not things you can KNOW.
All truth is axiomatic; all truth ultimately being relative. Epistemologically.
The existence of the nature of absolutes outside of individual perception or knowability is not the same as belief in their nature.
This is where each of us takes that leap into the unknown: the leap of faith.
Our leaps may differ, but we take them nonetheless.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mrmister:
You can't know truth objectively!
Who said anything about objective knowledge? I'm talking about knowing something about something that has objective reality. That knowledge may well be incomplete, and in parts incorrect. I'd accept that. But, regardless of the accuracy of our knowledge, if we say "I believe in Jesus" that can only make sense if Jesus has some objective reality apart from our beliefs.
Posted by mrmister (# 10850) on
:
quote:
But, regardless of the accuracy of our knowledge, if we say "I believe in Jesus" that can only make sense if Jesus has some objective reality apart from our beliefs.
Not at all.
1). Just saying "I believe in Jesus" doesn't conjure him up!
2). Nor does it follow that belief has to make sense.
3). Belief is not founded in the rational, but the irrational.
4). Beliefs not founded with "objective reality" (which in any case is unknowable epistemologically) are not necessarily nonsensical; for example, consider any situation in which you synthesise a conceptual arrangement. That might be in the mundane sphere such as finance, or it might be something abstract such as whether you prefer this painting to that symphony; or it might be some moral code, or ethical framework.
Things do not have to actually exist to be helpful for life - and in fact, many people have suggested that God is a social construct which facilitates the existence of that society.
Posted by mrmister (# 10850) on
:
For example, consider the placebo effect.
It actually helps, but not because of the reason the patient believes.
The fact that the patient believes is enough to produce measurable effects in that patient's life.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mrmister:
1). Just saying "I believe in Jesus" doesn't conjure him up!
Which is, more or less, what I said. Our beliefs, or lack thereof, do not change who Jesus is. We can believe in things that don't exist, and things that do. Are you saying "belief in Jesus saves" even if Jesus didn't exist?
quote:
2). Nor does it follow that belief has to make sense.
Well, not has to make sense. But, I see no reason why belief can't make sense.
quote:
3). Belief is not founded in the rational, but the irrational.
Well, my belief in Jesus is founded in part on the rational, with a good dose of superrational (ie: something that goes beyond rational, contra irrational that goes against rational). Personally, if there wasn't some element of rationality in the Christian faith then I'd ditch it.
quote:
4). Beliefs not founded with "objective reality" (which in any case is unknowable epistemologically) are not necessarily nonsensical; for example, consider any situation in which you synthesise a conceptual arrangement. That might be in the mundane sphere such as finance, or it might be something abstract such as whether you prefer this painting to that symphony
Except, your examples all involve something with objective reality. Finance requires that some means of valuing things really exists (eg: that there's such a thing as money). I can't prefer a painting to a symphony if one or other hasn't been produced by an artist, and that I've seen or heard them.
Posted by mrmister (# 10850) on
:
quote:
Which is, more or less, what I said.
No it isn't: you said our beliefs do not change the objective reality of Jesus.
Implicit to that is your unswerving certainty that your belief is identical to the objective reality of Jesus such that you feel able to imply that my belief that believing in Jesus saves is errant.
My point is you don't KNOW that - you only believe it, and you are welcome to. But you're not welcome to tell me my belief is wrong.
quote:
We can believe in things that don't exist, and things that do.
Absolutely, and it cuts both ways.
As the militant agnostic says, "I don't know and neither do you."
quote:
Well, not has to make sense. But, I see no reason why belief can't make sense.
It can, but doesn't have to, as you agreed with me here.
quote:
Well, my belief in Jesus is founded in part on the rational, with a good dose of superrational (ie: something that goes beyond rational, contra irrational that goes against rational).
There is nothing that is ultimately rational, since all truth is axiomatic. Everything starts with a leap of faith.
Although I certainly do agree that being consciously aware, as Darwin said, that "there is more to man than the breath in his body" is consciously irrational in that it is a leap of faith that one is aware of, and that this is inevitably going to be a vital component of spirituality since it isn't a sphere subject to the usual material, measurable physical standards one might conceive of.
Which are still epistemologically fallible. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
quote:
Personally, if there wasn't some element of rationality in the Christian faith then I'd ditch it.
In Torah it is written that false prophets are given the ability to work miracles to test Israel, which is expected to, in the face of miracles, reject the false prophet.
Jesus is miraculous, so the story goes. The miraculous is irrational, in that it defies the historical and scientific normality of the situation.
We are asked to come to God like children.
Children don't dissect rationalistic cause and consequence.
Personally I don't set store by cartesian religious belief.
quote:
Except, your examples all involve something with objective reality.
There is no such thing as the colour purple.
It is synthesised perceptually by the brain!
Do you like purple?
It doesn't exist.
How does that affect your opinion?
[ 12. February 2006, 19:39: Message edited by: mrmister ]
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on
:
I left this thread a few pages ago, but now I would like to say a few things to mrmister.
mrmister, the word "saved" can have two meanings. It can mean that when we will die, we will go to heaven. It seems to me that people in the West today stress that meaning a lot, as if they think that this is what matters.
I don't share their view. I think that the faith Jesus and the Apostles are talking about has to do primarily with "now", not the after life.
I think that getting to know the Son of God, getting to know God, your life changes. You have access to a wealth you didn't know you could access before. You live differently, or have the potential to live differently.
Jesus said that the Kingdom of Heavens has come. Indeed, people throughout the centuries have experienced the Glory of God. They shared in eternal life while they were alive; they didn't wait for their death to meet with their Creator.
So, this second and often forgotten meaning of salvation is crucial, and to this entrance to the Kingdom does orthodoxy help. To sum up, it is in this context that matters of right doctrine are actually matters of life or death.
This is not to say that people cannot share in God's divine energies without holding the right faith. But the best way to get access to God's transforming Grace is the orthodox one.
I hope you see more clearly now why some people insist on issues that might seem of little relevance.
Posted by mrmister (# 10850) on
:
Again, that is belief.
Just like everyone else's.
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on
:
That's not belief. That's experience. "Taste and see that the Lord is good".
Posted by mrmister (# 10850) on
:
Experience as you see it.
Read Kierkegaard.
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on
:
The philosopher has nothing to do with the community that incorporated from the beginning the gospel.
Posted by mrmister (# 10850) on
:
The gospels you hold in your hand are not a book from the heavens.
Marcion decided there would be four gospels because there are four winds.
I'm not getting into a textual debate - the hour is late and my throat is sore.
Please, please would you try and see that I'm not denying your right to believe what you wish...
but please do not pronounce your beliefs to me expecting me to swoon and see the light and agree with you, just because YOU happen to believe your beliefs.
Just because you believe something, that doesn't mean it is true.
Nor does it necessarily make it false.
Singleminded, dogmatic religious fervour is seductive.
But it is also destructive and deceitful.
I believe in God, and I am human. Tiny, mortal - but nonetheless I believe in Him.
I need not creedalise it.
I need not ascribe to dogma.
It is not for me to judge others nor am I judged.
I accept God's grace and mercy, his free gifts of undeserved love.
But what am I, that I should say My Thoughts are Perfect?
and by extension can you call yourself the sole conduit of truth? and on what basis - because you believe you are?
If God is real then his truth, his reality, is beyond my perception of Him.
I come to Him as a child, asking for undeserved grace as one forgiven of sin not deserving to approach Him.
I do not believe in creedalism.
God is everywhere. My perception of His presence is irrelevant to that.
When God works, my perception of that is irrelevant.
I just believe.
I do not make inquisition of others' beliefs nor my own.
As Shakespeare's exiled warrior Coriolanus said, "There is a world elsewhere."
And I am happy to join it.
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on
:
OK. However, Marcion rejected the three gospels, and kept only Luke and Paul.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mrmister:
you said our beliefs do not change the objective reality of Jesus.
Implicit to that is your unswerving certainty that your belief is identical to the objective reality of Jesus such that you feel able to imply that my belief that believing in Jesus saves is errant.
Well, I guess then I'd suggest you learn to read what I said. Because I've explicitely denied what you claim I've implied. You're correct, I said that our beliefs do not change the objective reality of Jesus. I also said that quote:
I'm talking about knowing something about something that has objective reality. That knowledge may well be incomplete, and in parts incorrect.
I'm not claiming to have all the answers, perfect faith let alone any sort of "unswerving certainty" that my "belief is identical to the objective reality of Jesus". If I have any sort of certainty, it's that the reality of Jesus is much more than I can comprehend.
I'm also not claiming that your belief that "belief in Jesus" is errant. I'm just trying to figure out what you mean by that phrase. It may, or may not, turn out to be the same as my belief. Which, if I was to sum it up in such a short phrase would be "I believe that Jesus saves".
quote:
There is no such thing as the colour purple.
Electromagnetic radiation with a wavelength of approximately 0.4µm is called "purple" in English.
Posted by mrmister (# 10850) on
:
quote:
If I have any sort of certainty, it's that the reality of Jesus is much more than I can comprehend.
Now you're talking.
As for purple, it's not a question of wavelengths - it's a question of the colours which produce it.
Purple does not exist.
When you see light of that wavelength, you see a colour that does not exist.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
re: the colour purple. The electromagnetic radiation of 0.4µm wavelength exists. Our eyes react to that radiation generating a signal that our brains interpret as "purple" (assuming we're not colour blind).
Now, I can see an argument for saying that's all a mental construct. But, if so then when I look across the room and my eyes picks em radiation which the brain interprets as being my wife sitting there then does that make her a mental construct too?
Posted by dinghy sailor (# 8507) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mrmister
I do not believe in creedalism.
That's nice. But according to your own reasoning, you have no right to impose that on me.
Or maybe you do. After all, our beliefs aren't completely irrational. When my eyes pick up a jumble of light of different wavelengths, which my brain differentiates by showing me what I perceive to be different colours, (but which are only my brain's way of showing me which different wavelengths of light are coming in, in which different parts of my field of vision) and those wavelengths in those places show up in my memory as similar to every other picture I've seen of Mrmister (or a similar being) walking into a wall, I generally decide that I'll inform Mrmister that he's about to get hurt (as most jumbles of light that look like Mrmister do, when they walk into what look like walls). If he tells me that I have no right to inform him I believe he's about to get hurt, I shrug. He can believe what he likes, every being like him that's previously walked into a wall has acted like he's hurt, whether he believes in it or not.
Posted by mrmister (# 10850) on
:
Actually, when light reaches your retina which is not a strong stimulus to any of your three colour receptors, it's seen as purple. In other words, light at EITHER end of the visible spectrum is seen as purple - it's not as simple as saying one wavelength.
Brown is a mental construct too, based on differential stimulus to the three receptors.
These things you perceive do not in themselves exist as physical entities.
Your brain assumes them.
It is helpful for your brain to assume them;
but the reality is that purple no more exists than brown.
We just have color receptors with peaks at red, green and blue.
Perception and reality are two completely different things.
Posted by mrmister (# 10850) on
:
Just because you believe something is true - no matter how strongly you might feel about it - that does not mean that it IS true.
Posted by dinghy sailor (# 8507) on
:
Well your receptors are faulty, then. Every signal carries some noise. And do you even want to get into Heisenberg uncertainty? That does not stop a signal carrying useful information.
And do you not get it, colours are NO MORE THAN the means of communicating to our brain what wavelengths of light are entering our eyes. It's like saying that the sine waves on your oscilloscope you've got plugged into your 0.4&mu&m detector don't exist, they're just what the oscilliscope uses to tell you that there are some light rays entering the detector . Rather a pointless exercise.
When a doctor treats someone, do they say that, "I have no reason to enforce on you my belief that, based on the reaction of most objects similar to you who've come in here, you'll probably die when I give you both these medicines together. So I'll prescribe you both, anyway."
And anyway, tell me. If you're so relativist, why do you spend all your time on here trying to convince us all of your own personal, apparently totally irrational beliefs?
[ 12. February 2006, 21:49: Message edited by: dinghy sailor ]
Posted by mrmister (# 10850) on
:
quote:
Well your receptors are faulty, then. Every signal carries some noise. And do you even want to get into Heisenberg uncertainty? That does not stop a signal carrying useful information.
But the question is, how to discern signal from noise?
What do you define as useful?
Given a pattern you've never encountered before, do you interpret it or not?
Why assume, dogmatically, that there is any signal at all?
It reminds me of Bertrand Russell saying "I can tell you that love and hate are different, and that it is better to be loved than it is to be hated; but I cannot tell you why."
There needn't necessarily be a reason - or a signal; or if it is there it isn't necessarily discernible.
quote:
And do you not get it, colours are NO MORE THAN the means of communicating to our brain what wavelengths of light are entering our eyes. It's like saying that the sine waves on your oscilloscope you've got plugged into your 0.4μ&m detector don't exist, they're just what the oscilliscope uses to tell you that there are some light rays entering the detector . Rather a pointless exercise.
No, you're wrong.
The colour purple does NOT have a specific wavelength.
Imagine the visible spectrum. Imagine that diagram.
Now. At EITHER end, light is seen as purple.
There is NO such thing as one wavelength range for purple light.
quote:
When a doctor treats someone, do they say that, "I have no reason to enforce on you my belief that, based on the reaction of most objects similar to you who've come in here, you'll probably die when I give you both these medicines together. So I'll prescribe you both, anyway."
When a doctor gives someone pills, they get better - or worse.
When a priest convinces someone of Christ, they don't come back from the dead to write a testimonial.
quote:
And anyway, tell me. If you're so relativist, why do you spend all your time on here trying to convince us all of your own personal, apparently totally irrational beliefs?
I don't try to convince anyone.
All beliefs are ultimately irrational.
[ 12. February 2006, 22:00: Message edited by: mrmister ]
Posted by dinghy sailor (# 8507) on
:
quote:
Why assume, dogmatically, that there is any signal at all?
Because I just nodded to my friend across the lab, so he'd send me one. He's done it for the past two years.
quote:
quote:
And do you not get it, colours are NO MORE THAN the means of communicating to our brain what wavelengths of light are entering our eyes. It's like saying that the sine waves on your oscilloscope you've got plugged into your 0.4μ&m detector don't exist, they're just what the oscilliscope uses to tell you that there are some light rays entering the detector . Rather a pointless exercise.
No, you're wrong.
The colour purple does NOT have a specific wavelength.
Imagine the visible spectrum. Imagine that diagram.
Now. At EITHER end, light is seen as purple.
There is NO such thing as one wavelength range for purple light.
Yes, I get it. Let's see how I answered you last time, shall we?
quote:
Originally posted by dinghy sailor:
Well your receptors are faulty, then. Every signal carries some noise.
But just because our detectors are faulty, and every signal carries noise, doesn't mean we can't find a signal in there. I know this from experience. Every human shaped being that I have seen so far has always gone "Ow" when they've walked into a wall. I can therefore safely assume they're not illusions.
quote:
quote:
When a doctor treats someone, do they say that, "I have no reason to enforce on you my belief that, based on the reaction of most objects similar to you who've come in here, you'll probably die when I give you both these medicines together. So I'll prescribe you both, anyway."
When a doctor gives someone pills, they get better - or worse.
Do they? That's only your personal, irrational opinion. You have no right to enforce that on anyone else. And noone else has any right to force theirs on you (though since when rights were an absolute, I'm not sure. You seem to know.)Why should they have got better? You the doctor are just as welcome to assume that they're actually saying they got worse. Your assumption that they said they got better was irrational, anyway.
quote:
I don't try to convince anyone.
Pull the other one.
[ 12. February 2006, 22:18: Message edited by: dinghy sailor ]
Posted by mrmister (# 10850) on
:
quote:
Every human shaped being that I have seen so far has always gone "Ow" when they've walked into a wall. I can therefore safely assume they're not illusions.
Tell that to someone on an LSD trip, or to a positive-symptom schizophrenic suffering from florid hallucinations.
You are right to use the word "assume".
Much of the time, such assumptions may work out well for you - the assumption that a chair will not disappear when you sit on it, for example.
Chairs won't always do that; I had a chair once that broke, for example.
Assumptions about the world aren't always safe.
But how many times have you died?
How many times have you seen Jesus in the flesh and come back to tell the tale?
How much personal experience of Judgment Day have you got to inform you that your assumption is at least as safe as that?
Going back to the example of the hallucinations, can you accept that to the schizophrenic, his or her hallucinations are just as real as the wall you suggest people bump into?
And if you accept that, to them, these hallucinations are real,
then can you surely not by extension recognise that this hope based on a leap of faith produced quite possibly by your own sociological filters and not by experience (since you've not yet died and haven't talked to those who have) is, possibly, no more real outside of your own perception than the fictional colour purple?
Posted by mrmister (# 10850) on
:
For example:
quote:
Two incidents stand out in the chronicles of SETI which, at the time, suggested that signals might have been detected from an extraterrestrial intelligence. The first was in 1963 when the radio source designated CTA-102 was claimed by Soviet astronomers to be evidence of a highly advanced alien civilization. In 1967, S. Jocelyn Bell (now Bell Burnell) recorded a regular pulsating signal using a radio telescope in Cambridge, England, designed by Anthony Hewish to look for rapid variations in the radio wave emission of quasars. An early theory was that the pulses might be coming from an interstellar beacon and the source was tentatively catalogued as LGM, for "little green men." However, it quickly became clear that this, and other, similar sources which were detected soon after, could be explained naturally in terms of rotating neutron stars, or pulsars.
http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/S/SETIfalse.html
Just because you think something contains a signal doesn't mean there is one.
And what is the signal to which you're referring?
Your feelings? Your hope? For this is the stuff of faith.
Because you feel something is true, you assume it is true?
If you can be wrong about something so fundamental as the colours you see with your own eyes, could you not also be wrong about things you can't see with them?
Might it not be that it's just easier, amid an evil, cruel, pointless life, to hope for something beyond death than to admit that this is all there is?
Isn't it at least possible that these feelings you hold so strongly are just that - feelings? and have no basis in reality as it actually IS as opposed to what you perceive or even perhaps wish to perceive?
It is impossible to know absolutely either way - or even with strong probability. There is only hope, feelings, such things of no substance.
Posted by dinghy sailor (# 8507) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mrmister:
Going back to the example of the hallucinations, can you accept that to the schizophrenic, his or her hallucinations are just as real as the wall you suggest people bump into?
Nope, because let's just say that wall is a cliff. Their life depends on whether they walk off the real cliff or not. It doesn't depend on whether they walk off the imaginary cliff or not.
And perversely, you've just brought up the perfect example for what I'm trying to say. I do have a right to impose my beliefs on other people. Because ever since I can remember, I've had a fairly good ability to judge whether something's a cliff or not. So if a schizophrenic (or a drunk, or whatever) is about to walk off one, I'll impose my belief that that is a cliff on them, as fast as I can.
quote:
And if you can be wrong about something so fundamental as the colours you see with your own eyes
Not 'wrong'. The detector has limitations. Limitations which we know about, and which have never presented a major problem to us. If you buy a detector and it has a dead spot, or a spike, you can generally expect that to be documented somewhere. I've done plenty of experiments to determine precisely that sort of information, which I've then used to work within the detector's limitations while doing something else.
[ETA: I just deleted the post to edit it, and Mrmister's post should come after this one. And Mrmister, you were the one who started arguing with my wall example.]
[ 12. February 2006, 22:56: Message edited by: dinghy sailor ]
Posted by mrmister (# 10850) on
:
Improper comparison.
You do not have any reason beyond your own irrational feelings that Jesus exists at all.
So you can't compare spreading the Gospel with saving someone from plunging to certain doom off a cliff.
In fact, suppose the person in question already agreed with you about Jesus. Shouldn't you be happy they're going to Heaven?
And before you say that's ludicrous, I know a Christian woman who was actually jealous when an old bloke we both knew in the church died. She said it quite openly in the church, and this was as soon as she found out he'd died, and she didn't change her tune either.
quote:
The detector has limitations. Limitations which we know about, and which have never presented a major problem to us.
Because you are happy perceiving a colour that doesn't exist.
Just like you're happy believing in Jesus.
It's not a question of dead spots or spikes; it's a question of the implications of the limits of knowability.
You do not, never have, and never will (until possibly Judgment Day) *know* whether or not Jesus is God.
You do not have any evidence whatsoever for that.
You've never died.
You've never met anyone who has died.
All you have is your own feelings.
You won't admit it, but it is entirely possible that your hope in God is just as much a mental construct as your perception of the colour purple.
Of course that doesn't in itself mean that there is no God.
It just means that your conviction that because you believe you're right, that you must be right, or that because you think your reasoning is so likely to be correct that it must be, is without ultimate foundation beyond anyone else's socially acceptable delusions.
[ 12. February 2006, 23:04: Message edited by: mrmister ]
Posted by dinghy sailor (# 8507) on
:
quote:
You do not have any reason beyond your own irrational feelings that Jesus exists at all.
Well, I have rather a lot of evidence that someone called Jesus existed.
And something or other excited his wimpish followers into radical action a few days or weeks after his death at the hands of the Romans. There's another thread on that.
quote:
In fact, suppose the person in question already agreed with you about Jesus. Shouldn't you be happy they're going to Heaven?
And before you say that's ludicrous, I know a Christian woman who was actually jealous when an old bloke we both knew in the church died. She said it quite openly in the church, and this was as soon as she found out he'd died, and she didn't change her tune either.
That is a completely different issue.
quote:
Because you are happy perceiving a colour that doesn't exist.
What do you mean, "believe in"? I believe that my eyes give me signals that tell me what frequency the light that's entering them is at, and that those signals are reliable enough that I'm able to distinguish walls and cliffs from other things. That's all I believe about what I see. So what is all this "believing in the nonexistent colour purple" thing?
quote:
You do not have any evidence whatsoever for [Jesus being God].
Yes I do. As I said, something excited his followers. This has been gone over countless times. So don't argue here about it. The fact is that I DO NOT have "no evidence whatsoever". I'd junk Christianity if that was the case. As would you.
quote:
You won't admit it, but it is entirely possible that your hope in God is just as much a mental construct as your perception of the colour purple.
Yes, I freely admit it, so why do you assume that it's too hard for me? You must have a rather low opinion of me.
It is entirely possible that my hope in God is a mental construct.
Satisfied?
quote:
It just means that your conviction that because you believe you're right, that you must be right, or that because you think your reasoning is so likely to be correct that it must be
I don't have a conviction I'm right because I believe I'm right. I have a belief that it is more likely I'm generally right than generally wrong, because of the evidence presented to me. If that evidence should change, I'll reassess what I believe.
Now Mrmister, you have made A FLIPPING LOT of assumptions about me, based on even less evidence than you say I have for the existence of God. May I suggest that you stop doing that sort of thing? Now!
Posted by Gort (# 6855) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mrmister:
[...] It just means that your conviction that because you believe you're right, that you must be right, or that because you think your reasoning is so likely to be correct that it must be, is without ultimate foundation beyond anyone else's socially acceptable delusions.
Have you considered that the term "faith" could have a far more fundamental meaning within the nature of being than "belief in something unproven"? Proof (or lack thereof) for confirming theorems about truth is a human mechanism used to predict events within a framework that is repeatable.
I'm struggling to express an idea that is founded in direct personal experience that is the result of releasing one's hold on symbols and knowing a concept intimately. As I read back over that sentence it's obvious I'm clouding the issue with the same vague symbols that must be suspended to arrive at my meaning. "Faith" is a dim reflection (shadow, symbol, representation) of a power (force, law, immanation) intimately part of the act of creation; of how all things become. It is not founded on our limited perception of physical law, but once again, part of the act of being created.
I feel like I'm trying to build a bridge out of sand in a windstorm.
[ 12. February 2006, 23:44: Message edited by: Gort ]
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mrmister:
but please do not pronounce your beliefs to me expecting me to swoon and see the light and agree with you, just because YOU happen to believe your beliefs.
Pot. Kettle. Black.
Posted by Henry Troup (# 3722) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mrmister:
Christianity largely sets out its stall on the basis that if you believe in Jesus, you will go to Heaven when you die....
Ah, Hankism rears its head.
Posted by U (# 5930) on
:
I have a fairly simple answer that works for me which I got when I looked up love in the dictionary. Lief is old english for love. Be Lief could be seen as Be Love. So your beliefs are simply that which you choose to love. If you love Jesus then yes, you go to Heaven, no questions asked.
Posted by mrmister (# 10850) on
:
quote:
Well, I have rather a lot of evidence that someone called Jesus existed. And something or other excited his wimpish followers into radical action a few days or weeks after his death at the hands of the Romans. There's another thread on that.
Actually you don't.
I want to distinguish between evidence for the historical existence of Jesus the man (which is scant and rife with fraud), and evidence for the historical existence of Jesus the God (which is by nature impossible since God is spirit).
If you're going to be strict about it, historical method presupposes that miracles are not valid, because they do not happen in the normal course of events. But I don't want to get drawn into that debate, because it is unnecessary: evidence of Jesus the man, even if he did weird things, does NOT mean he is necessarily God.
Would people die for a lie? Too right they would. They do all over the world, all through history.
Just because of "radical action", or the existence of an early Christian community, that no more proves that Jesus is God than the existence of the witch trials proves there are witches.
quote:
That is a completely different issue.
No, it's not, because you were talking about your personal perception leading you to intervene in the life of another.
quote:
I believe that my eyes give me signals that tell me what frequency the light that's entering them is at, and that those signals are reliable enough that I'm able to distinguish walls and cliffs from other things. That's all I believe about what I see. So what is all this "believing in the nonexistent colour purple" thing?
Please, please, TRY and listen to me.
Imagine the spectrum. Here, I'll draw part of it:
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
X.Infra-red........Visible light........UV....................X
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
....................A..................B
Now. The parts of the spectrum I have marked with the letters "A" and "B" are BOTH seen as "purple" by the brain.
Can you see how A and B are two completely distinct, non-contiguous parts of the spectrum?
There is NO *single* wavelength band that equates to your perception of "purple": there are TWO of them.
quote:
You do not have any evidence whatsoever for [Jesus being God].Yes I do. As I said, something excited his followers. This has been gone over countless times. So don't argue here about it.
No, you don't. You just THINK you do.
So what if his followers got a bit excited in your opinion?
Is excitement limited to Christianity? Nope.
Exactly how does someone believing that Jesus is God prove that he is?
quote:
I'd junk Christianity if that was the case. As would you.
No I wouldn't.
quote:
It is entirely possible that my hope in God is a mental construct.
Satisfied?
quote:
I don't have a conviction I'm right because I believe I'm right. I have a belief that it is more likely I'm generally right than generally wrong, because of the evidence presented to me. If that evidence should change, I'll reassess what I believe.
With respect, that is not true.
There can be no evidence whatsoever for Jesus being God - it's all FAITH.
You weren't alive when he walked the earth according to the religion.
So all you have to go on is the social myth of Christ.
Evidence of early believers, and of whatever they did, is NOT, repeat NOT, evidence that Jesus is God, and if you believe it is, I would suggest that is a remarkably foolish stance.
In my opinion, you need to dissociate the concept of popular support for religion from its truth.
[ 13. February 2006, 07:04: Message edited by: mrmister ]
Posted by Chapelhead (# 21) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mrmister:
Do you like purple?
It doesn't exist.
How does that affect your opinion?
quote:
Originally posted by mrmister:
quote:
And do you not get it, colours are NO MORE THAN the means of communicating to our brain what wavelengths of light are entering our eyes. It's like saying that the sine waves on your oscilloscope you've got plugged into your 0.4μ&m detector don't exist, they're just what the oscilliscope uses to tell you that there are some light rays entering the detector . Rather a pointless exercise.
No, you're wrong.
The colour purple does NOT have a specific wavelength.
Imagine the visible spectrum. Imagine that diagram.
Now. At EITHER end, light is seen as purple.
There is NO such thing as one wavelength range for purple light.
I don’t have time to go through this in detail (even if I thought it worthwhile), but I thought I should flag up that this is bunkum.
For a start, the second is not a justification for the first (whether there is a specific wavelength of light for “purple” does not establish whether purple exists or not, any more that the lack of a wavelength of light specific to the Eiffel Tower demonstrates that the Eiffel Tower does not exist). And secondly, purple can be regarded as "existing" or "not existing" based on one's definition of "exist", and that only takes us to a Humpty Dumpty argument where we give our own meaning to words other people are using. In a similar fashion one could debate whether anger, fear etc exist (can't put them in a test tube) or whether the present or future exist.
Now I have to get in my car (assuming my car exists - not having a specific frequency of sound associated with it, in mrmister’s world it might not) to go to work, where I will spend eight hours desperately trying to work out whether I am a butterfly dreaming that I am a person.
Bunkum.
Posted by mrmister (# 10850) on
:
quote:
whether there is a specific wavelength of light for “purple” does not establish whether purple exists or not, any more that the lack of a wavelength of light specific to the Eiffel Tower demonstrates that the Eiffel Tower does not exist
Correct.
Likewise, having a social conception of God does not prove he exists.
For example, the followers of Jesus getting a bit "excited".
quote:
And secondly, purple can be regarded as "existing" or "not existing" based on one's definition of "exist", and that only takes us to a Humpty Dumpty argument where we give our own meaning to words other people are using.
Absolutely.
Perception and objective reality are two completely different things.
quote:
In a similar fashion one could debate whether anger, fear etc exist (can't put them in a test tube) or whether the present or future exist.
Correct.
But to compare "evidence" for the existence of God with "evidence" for anger or fear is not fair.
There are measurable biophysical data, as well as subjective reports, that suggest that they exist - although these alone are not enough.
Which is why lie detectors can be fooled, and are therefore not admissible evidentially in courts of law.
But what data can there be to act as direct evidence that there is a God?
What would you measure? The size of his footsteps?
Would you listen for his soft sweet voice on the wind with a microphone?
No. Of course not.
The only "evidences" religionists can trot out are:
a). historical - which amounts, scantily, to evidence of the existence of believers - which does not take the argument any further than an individual standing up and saying "I Believe, therefore it must be true" - it's just that the person died a long while ago;
b). personal feelings - which are irrelevant - just because one feels something very strongly, that doesn't mean it has any basis in reality;
c). "change" of lifestyle - a particularly wicked doctrine which implicitly suggests that all those who do not share the same belief system are somehow morally defective, which is clearly not the case. Just ask Gandhi. And it also doesn't explain the proponents of religion who are most definitely NOT nice people.
d). holy teachings - this might include a book, for example. But again, why accept a book to be the Word-O'-God or even an accurate historical witness? If a witness in court suddenly started talking about how the Leprechauns mounted an attack on him, Your Honour, and how therefore that's why his car bashed into the car in front, the court would most likely decide the man to be a liar. Why should it necessarily be any different with people thousands of years ago? Does their being dead make their witness suddenly any more credible?
I find it absolutely laughable that people cannot conceive of the possibility of belief as a faith leap, while simultaneously promoting faith with all guns blazing.
To me it smacks of dishonesty and delusion.
The "local God phenomenon", you might say... social expedience masquerading as enlightenedness.
It reminds me of Carl Sagan's Dragon:
[Copyright material removed. It's all in the link you gave anyway]
Link: http://www.users.qwest.net/~jcosta3/article_dragon.htm
[ 13. February 2006, 08:52: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]
Posted by mrmister (# 10850) on
:
quote:
whether there is a specific wavelength of light for “purple” does not establish whether purple exists or not, any more that the lack of a wavelength of light specific to the Eiffel Tower demonstrates that the Eiffel Tower does not exist
I would also point out that here you are confusing your subjective perception of the colour purple with its actual physical existence.
It doesn't actually physically exist.
You just PERCEIVE that it does. But that perception is your brain responding to either of two bands of light wavelengths.
Ironically, in truth, all colour is a mental construct; what is blue?
Can one capture it? Store it in a jar?
No.
It is a perceptual phenomenon.
Cats see the world in black and white to enhance contrast for capturing prey, whereas monkeys see the world in colour because they eat fruit and need the colour contrast to enhance their detection of fruit.
Does cats' black-and-white vision mean that the world physically is black and white?
Of course not.
No more than our seeing the world in colour means the world is coloured.
There are wavelengths of light.
What we perceive them to be is entirely a mental construct.
The colour purple is a particularly good example of this, because it shows very easily that the brain is applying its labels onto the world - light from either of those TWO wavelength bands gets the "purple" label from the brain.
Does that make the two wavelength bands identical? Nope. But your brain interprets them the same way regardless.
That's the difference between perception and reality.
Posted by Peronel (# 569) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mrmister:
I find it absolutely laughable that people cannot conceive of the possibility of belief as a faith leap, while simultaneously promoting faith with all guns blazing.
To me it smacks of dishonesty and delusion.
So where on the ship have you found "people [who] cannot conceive of the possibility of belief as a faith leap"? For that matter, where have you read on the ship people "promoting faith with all guns blazing"??
You're setting up a straw-man which has very little to do with what anyone here is arguing. Which is all the more ironic when you're setting out what should be arguments of fact (conspiracies of translators distorting the gospel and so forth) as faith positions in need of no evidence to back them up.
To me, that smacks of dishonesty and delusion.
Regarding your dragon anecdote, I'm guessing that in your world copyright laws don't exist, either.
Peronel.
Posted by Pure as the Driven Yellow Snow (# 9397) on
:
If a tree falls in a forest.....
Everything to do with man is a perceptual phenomenon. It is how we interpret the world around us. I would extend that argument to the perception of God.
[Typo-you know my keyboard has never been the same since I tipped a glass of port over it]
[ 13. February 2006, 07:35: Message edited by: Pure as the Driven Yellow Snow ]
Posted by mrmister (# 10850) on
:
quote:
Have you considered that the term "faith" could have a far more fundamental meaning within the nature of being than "belief in something unproven"?
Yes.
quote:
Proof (or lack thereof) for confirming theorems about truth is a human mechanism used to predict events within a framework that is repeatable.
Not just proof, but the act of recognising any evidence at all.
Evidence - and proof - are what you accept them to be.
The key question is not "What proof is there for X?", but "What would YOU accept as proof for X?"
It's all perception.
quote:
I'm struggling to express an idea that is founded in direct personal experience that is the result of releasing one's hold on symbols and knowing a concept intimately.
Irrational things being by their very nature not rational.
quote:
As I read back over that sentence it's obvious I'm clouding the issue with the same vague symbols that must be suspended to arrive at my meaning.
That might suggest that your initial argument may be faulty.
quote:
"Faith" is a dim reflection (shadow, symbol, representation) of a power (force, law, immanation) intimately part of the act of creation; of how all things become. It is not founded on our limited perception of physical law, but once again, part of the act of being created.
But you've just made it fall within the remit of your "limited perception" by defining it - albeit with a definition that is personal and untestable - and therefore unquestionable... in such a system it is only to be accepted or not...
quote:
I feel like I'm trying to build a bridge out of sand in a windstorm.
In my opinion you are.
Posted by mrmister (# 10850) on
:
quote:
Everything to do with man is a perceptual phenomenon. It is how we interpret the world around us. I would extend that argument to the perception of God.
A man's "perception" of God might be entirely sociological, or even epiphenomenal.
It might be an emergent property of society.
It might be the product of ignorance.
It might be the desperate need not to be alone and to believe that death is not the end, that this is not all there is.
But what it isn't is proof - or even evidence - that God exists.
Posted by Peronel (# 569) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mrmister:
No more than our seeing the world in colour means the world is coloured.
There are wavelengths of light.
What we perceive them to be is entirely a mental construct.
The colour purple is a particularly good example of this, because it shows very easily that the brain is applying its labels onto the world - light from either of those TWO wavelength bands gets the "purple" label from the brain.
Does that make the two wavelength bands identical? Nope. But your brain interprets them the same way regardless.
That's the difference between perception and reality.
Actually, this is one area where perception does reflect reality.
The reality is that different objects reflect or emit different wavelengths or combinations of wavelengths of light.
The reality is that the receptors in our eyes respond to those wavelengths, triggering a response in our brain.
The fact that our brains aren't always very good at this, and that some brains (ie cat brains) are worse than others, doesn't alter that fundamental reality. Different wavelengths of light are being reflected, whether or not we have the ability to pick them up.
That a big red bus reflects different wavelengths of light than a small blue ball does is real. That remains real, regardless of whether I'm blind, so can't see those wavelengths; or am a cat, so just distinguish them in shades of grey; or am colour-blind so can't tell one from the other, anyway. How good my observation is doesn't alter what light is actually being reflected.
In the same way, if God is real, then his reality is independant of my ability to observe it. He is real (or not real) regardless of whether or not I believe in him: my belief does not alter existance. "Just because you believe something is true, that doesn't mean it is." Equally, it doesn't mean that it isn't.
And just because your brain is crap at interpreting wavelengths of light, so tends to mush some together as different shades of purple, doesn't mean those wavelengths aren't real.
Peronel.
Posted by Pure as the Driven Yellow Snow (# 9397) on
:
Could you please prove to me that anything exists; Everything is filtered through our senses.
Posted by mrmister (# 10850) on
:
quote:
just because your brain is crap at interpreting wavelengths of light, so tends to mush some together as different shades of purple, doesn't mean those wavelengths aren't real.
Correct.
But it does mean that the subjective experience of purpleness doesn't have any basis in physical reality - it's a perceptual label.
That perceptual experience does not exist outside of your brain... only the wavelengths do.
quote:
In the same way, if God is real, then his reality is independant of my ability to observe it. He is real (or not real) regardless of whether or not I believe in him: my belief does not alter existance. "Just because you believe something is true, that doesn't mean it is." Equally, it doesn't mean that it isn't.
I agree. But usually religious people seem to assume, in my experience, that just because they believe something, that it must be true, *for example* because God has somehow miraculously opened their eyes to spiritual truths that the rest of us cannot perceive.
Which is why my signature is the way it is.
Posted by Gort (# 6855) on
:
You're tilting at windmills, Mr. mrmister.
Posted by mrmister (# 10850) on
:
quote:
Could you please prove to me that anything exists; Everything is filtered through our senses.
What would you accept as proof that something exists?
Posted by Peronel (# 569) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mrmister:
But it does mean that the subjective experience of purpleness doesn't have any basis in physical reality - it's a perceptual label.
Bollocks.
The subjective experience of purpleness is triggered by exposing the eye to certain wavelengths of light.
That there are different groups of wavelengths that do that doesn't alter the fact that when the brain reports "purple" it does so in response to specific, external, stimuli.
That's the physical reality, to which the brain responds.
That's overlaid, of course, by memory, emotional responses, and so forth. When I see a specific shade of purple I think "mmmm chocolate", for example.
But I do so because the cadburys wrapper, the physical object, reflects light of specific wavelengths. And that wrapper - as far as anyone can be sure that reality exists - has an objective, physical existance.
Peronel.
Posted by Pure as the Driven Yellow Snow (# 9397) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mrmister:
quote:
Could you please prove to me that anything exists; Everything is filtered through our senses.
What would you accept as proof that something exists?
I think this is my point. I believe in colour through vision. I accept the wavelength theory of light because it makes sense but I also accept it is a man derived theory that explains observable phenomenon. But everything we know and accept is human theory for observation through one of the senses.
I believe in God; because of experiential contact, and the historical accounts and written texts. I believe in colour because of experiential contact, and the historical accounts and written texts.
It is a faith. But all belief in all things is faith. I have faith in colour. To someone who is blind from birth, they can have faith in colour without a clear understanding. This mirrors my experience and faith in God, murky, incomplete but nonetheless real.
I cannot prove for you that God exists and is real. I can prove that a historical Jesus existed, with the same veracity as other figures of that time. But I believe.
Posted by mrmister (# 10850) on
:
quote:
The subjective experience of purpleness is triggered by exposing the eye to certain wavelengths of light.
The subjective experience of purpleness is different from the light wavelengths themselves.
The "specific, external stimuli" and your "subjective experience" of them are two completely different things.
Your experience of the colour purple does not have any objective basis in reality - only the light wavelengths do.
The natural consequence of this is that people's subjective experiences of colour are impossible to compare. Your subjective perceptual experience of green might not match mine, even though we would both be responding to the same underlying wavelengths of light.
The point is, a feeling, no matter how strongly held, does not prove objectively that something objectively exists.
Just because you subjectively experience the colour purple does not mean that your subjective experience physically exists - it is a mental construct.
The link with religious faith is obvious - believing in God doesn't PROVE that God exists.
Posted by mrmister (# 10850) on
:
quote:
I believe in God; because of experiential contact, and the historical accounts and written texts. I believe in colour because of experiential contact, and the historical accounts and written texts.
Nonsense. You didn't read historical accounts of colour when you were a child before starting to experience colour.
Colour did not require you to believe in it in order for you to experience it perceptually!
The fact that religious folk suggest that God does is suggestive. I do not believe that God's existence depends on my belief in him or on beliefs about him.
You believe in God because of experiential contact, you say? What contact? Did he descend from a cloud, tap you on the shoulder and say Oi, You?
Or do you mean what every other believer means - that what you subjectively experience as belief in God you are interpreting as evidence of God's direct spiritual intervention in your life?
quote:
It is a faith. But all belief in all things is faith.
I agree.
quote:
I cannot prove for you that God exists and is real.
Thank you. I agree.
quote:
But I believe.
Again, thank you. Again, I agree.
[ 13. February 2006, 08:20: Message edited by: mrmister ]
Posted by Wolfgang (# 10809) on
:
quote:
Did he descend from a cloud, tap you on the shoulder and say Oi, You?
He descended from heaven and said "follow me". There is no way to "prove" that Jesus was God, but the conclusion is not within the realm of absurdity. I suppose if we take your logic it would be impossible to prove Hitler was a bad man, because by using the word "bad" we make a value-judgement. But we can look at the things Hitler did and make a conclusion from them. Just as we can look at the things Jesus said and did and derive a conclusion from those. (Athough actually I wouldn't say that our calling Jesus God was a "value-judgement" as much as a "truth-claim")
Posted by Pure as the Driven Yellow Snow (# 9397) on
:
Whilst we are being agreeable, I reread your OP and feel
quote:
Christianity is not hard.
It's the Christians that are hard, in my opinion.
is one of the most sadly accurate descriptions I have heard in a long time.
My perception of God.
It is the feeling of joy that wells up inside without external stimulus but prayer. It was the sense of peace and 'It'll be OKness' when my son was born with significant risks of brain damage after an unrecognised placental abruption which accompanied my prayer of hoplessness and inablity to do anything to fix it. It's the observation of small miracles I see in my work when I pray for the patients whilst doing procedural or diagnostic work. It is the reasurrance of God's presence.
And there are times when I don't feel this. But these are perceptions, the way I perceive and interpret the world, like my five senses, and no less real to me. In the same way, you may see green differently to me, your experience of God will similarly be different.
All I can come back to is I believe, and wish you peace.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mrmister:
quote:
The subjective experience of purpleness is triggered by exposing the eye to certain wavelengths of light.
The subjective experience of purpleness is different from the light wavelengths themselves.
The "specific, external stimuli" and your "subjective experience" of them are two completely different things.
Your experience of the colour purple does not have any objective basis in reality - only the light wavelengths do.
The use of the word "purple" is a means of categorising the wavelengths of light we perceive, as are all the words we put to colours (whether that be a clearly defined single wavelength such as that produced by a red laser, or the multi-wavelength composite that we call white). Humans have a need to categorise things in order to simply exist (eg: a categorising of fruit into "edible" and "poisonous"), and a common understanding of those categories is necessary for us to live in society. Yes, so those categories are mental constructs, and yes (in the case of colours at least) there are alternative categorisation schemes (not all societies share the red, orage, yellow, green, blue, indigo, violet description of a rainbow).
But, and here's a big but, you agree that we're talking about perception of something that has objective reality independent of our perceptions, ie: however we categorise the responses of our eyes, the wavelength of light (or the combination of wavelengths) does not change.
Which is what I've been saying about Jesus all along. Irrespective of what you or I believe about Jesus doesn't change his objective reality independent of our beliefs. That's also true regardless of our ability to know that objective reality. We can't know the colour of Jesus eyes - you may believe them to be blue, I may believe them to be green, someone else might believe they were hazel. None of which would mean that Jesus eyes were constantly changing colour to match the beliefs of others.
So, given that there is an objective reality to Jesus (which could, of course, include the possible objective reality that he never even existed) and everyone has some belief about Jesus (ranging from "he never existed" to "he was God Incarnate, died and rose again, and sits by my bed everynight listening to my prayers") there are two obvious questions.
1) Which of the range of possible beliefs about Jesus corresponds closest to the objective reality?
2) Does it matter whether or not what one believes about Jesus corresponds closely to the objective reality?
(and, I suppose, we still need to know whether when you talk about "belief in Jesus" you're even asking the same thing as "belief about Jesus")
Posted by Pure as the Driven Yellow Snow (# 9397) on
:
Of Course.
Karl Barth argues we are always wrong when we look at God by starting with man.
We should start with God and then look at man.
And Jesus is the objective reality we have of God.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
And, on a seperate note. Slightly irregular as we try to avoid acting as host or admin on threads we're participating in, but the Purgatory hosts are not immediately available, I've deleted the long quote from Carl Sagan mrmister posted earlier. The link he provided (which I see is now in his sig too) gives the full thing. The quoting of full works, or overly lengthy extracts from them, is a violation of the authors copyright. And, is in breach of Commandment 7 here.
Any questions about this, please raise them in the Styx or ask me (or one of the other hosts or admins) privately.
Alan
Ship of Fools Admin
Posted by Chapelhead (# 21) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mrmister:
[The colour purple] doesn't actually physically exist.
You just PERCEIVE that it does. But that perception is your brain responding to either of two bands of light wavelengths.
More than anything else this convinces me that you don't kow what you are talking about. There are no "two bands of wavelengths" that are perceived as the colour purple. What you are, presumably, thinking of are the extreme ends of the spectrum visible to humans, one of which is perceived as deep red, the other as deep blue, tending to "purplish". But these are not "purple.
You seem to be mixing up "purple" with the range of colour termed "magenta", which is not capable of being formed from a single wavelength/frequency of light, but can be "created" by mixing two other wavelengths/frequencies (from the red and blue ends of the visible spectrum). I think that knowing the subject before commenting so dogmatically on it might help you.
You also seem to be getting confused by the idea of reality.
Whatever, it's still bunkum.
Back to thinking that I'm a butterfly dreaming I am a person. Or perhaps I'll do something useful.
Posted by mrmister (# 10850) on
:
quote:
There is no way to "prove" that Jesus was God
I agree.
quote:
but the conclusion is not within the realm of absurdity.
I agree.
But what is absurd? There is plenty in the Bible that, were someone contemporaneous to make similar claims, would render that person denounced as a madman or an imbecile or the such like.
quote:
He descended from heaven and said "follow me".
You mean you believe the account of others who may or may not have existed, who allegedly claim he did.
Or are you saying God descended right in front of your very own eyes?
[ 13. February 2006, 09:13: Message edited by: mrmister ]
Posted by Peronel (# 569) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mrmister:
quote:
The subjective experience of purpleness is triggered by exposing the eye to certain wavelengths of light.
The subjective experience of purpleness is different from the light wavelengths themselves.
Yes, of course it is.
But saying the two are different is very different from saying - as you did - that:
quote:
the subjective experience of purpleness doesn't have any basis in physical reality
Its that argument that's bullshit.
Peronel.
Posted by mrmister (# 10850) on
:
quote:
the subjective experience of purpleness doesn't have any basis in physical reality
Its that argument that's bullshit.
No, that's not true.
I think you're misreading the sentence.
The subjective experience of purpleness itself doesn't have any basis in physical reality in that it is not *itself* a physical entity.
Regardless of how strongly we perceive purple, it does not actually exist.
Posted by mrmister (# 10850) on
:
quote:
All I can come back to is I believe, and wish you peace.
I agree with you on that, and likewise
Posted by mrmister (# 10850) on
:
quote:
You seem to be mixing up "purple" with the range of colour termed "magenta", which is not capable of being formed from a single wavelength/frequency of light, but can be "created" by mixing two other wavelengths/frequencies (from the red and blue ends of the visible spectrum). I think that knowing the subject before commenting so dogmatically on it might help you.
The point is that it is a mental construct, not an actual physical entity.
[ 13. February 2006, 10:20: Message edited by: mrmister ]
Posted by Chapelhead (# 21) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mrmister:
The subjective experience of purpleness itself doesn't have any basis in physical reality in that it is not *itself* a physical entity.
What you seem to be implying here is that a subjective experience is a subjective experience - not especially profound.
What you have also done is say that a something (in this case a colour) exists (your definition exists) if it can be formed from a single wavelength of light. Having created your own defnition of what exists (back to Humpty Dumpty) you can then say that under your definition purple does not exist. Well, if you make you own defninitions then word can mean anything you want them to mean.
You later modified your position by saying that all colours do not exist, as they are subjective constraucts. But this can be said of anything. What we now have is a position where of "we can prove nothing". This is a valid debating point, but it has nothing very specific to do with religion, belief etc. Two atheists could equally debate whether we can truly know anything - back to the butterfly dreaming that it is a person. This ought to be in a thread entitled "We can absolutely know nothing".
quote:
Originally posted by mrmister:
purpleness itself doesn't have any basis in physical reality in that it is not *itself* a physical entity.
A mixture of electromagnetic radiation of wavelength 400nm and electromagnetic radiation of wavelength 700nm is as much a physical entity as electromagnetic radiation of 550nm
Posted by mrmister (# 10850) on
:
quote:
What you seem to be implying here is that a subjective experience is a subjective experience - not especially profound.
I don't claim to be profound.
I just say that I believe in Jesus, but I need not prove God, nor can I... nor do I believe that others can prove God, nor need they.
quote:
What we now have is a position where of "we can prove nothing". This is a valid debating point
I agree.
quote:
but it has nothing very specific to do with religion, belief etc.
Clearly false! Religious people talk about proving the existence of God, and of evidences for his existence, all the time - so clearly it has something specific to do with religion.
quote:
A mixture of electromagnetic radiation of wavelength 400nm and electromagnetic radiation of wavelength 700nm is as much a physical entity as electromagnetic radiation of 550nm
Yes, but that radiation is not your perception of colouredness.
Electromagnetic radiation is electromagnetic radiation.
Your perception of colour is your perception of colour.
The two are different.
As LSD, and lesion studies of the visual cortex, all demonstrate.
Your perception of colour is completely different from electromagnetic radiation.
Perhaps you should get YOUR facts right?
[ 13. February 2006, 10:40: Message edited by: mrmister ]
Posted by dinghy sailor (# 8507) on
:
Mrmister,
In your reply to my last post, you went utterly overboard. You made the your point several pages ago that different wavelengths of light can be represented as the colour purple. I understood it perfectly then. I then went on to say that all I believed about colour was that my eyes show me what wavelengths of light are coming in, and though they're flawed, they give a good enough picture that I can avoid walls and cliffs. You then repeated your crap about my 'belief in the colour purple'. If you actually took time to read my post, you'd have noticed that I was actually sort of agreeing with you. You seem to believe that I have some view of purpleness that I don't actually have. It would be nice if you read my posts and found that out, for once.
You then went on to refute my clim that I have some sort of evidence for Jesus. You said I have no evidence at all. Well, a) it is another thread so I didn't list it all, and b) YOu may think that it is extremely bad evidence. You can produce better evidence that overpowers it if you like. However, you cannot deny that it is no evidence at all. A very small quantitiy is still different from nothing.
In your last couple of posts directed at me, you have made several assumptions about me and the way my mind works. You have not bothered to find out these things from me beforehand - they were assumptions with no basis in fact. I've then flatly refuted these, because I know these things about me, because I'm me and you're not me. You've then come along and told me I'm wrong. Well, I've quite frankly got better things to do than waste my time with a campaigning, unlistening jerk like you who talks alot of crap. Good day to you.
Oh, and about your signiature, you may want to change it. Radiohead said it much better than you. "Just 'cause you feel it, doesn't mean it's there."
There There
Posted by Chapelhead (# 21) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mrmister:
quote:
but it has nothing very specific to do with religion, belief etc.
Clearly false! Religious people talk about proving the existence of God, and of evidences for his existence, all the time - so clearly it has something specific to do with religion.
That doesn't make it specifically relgious. I probably use terms like "prove", "believe", "think" etc far more often in non-relgious contexts than in relgious ones.
quote:
Originally posted by mrmister:
Electromagnetic radiation is electromagnetic radiation.
Your perception of colour is your perception of colour.
The two are different.
Here we get back to your circular argument. You have defined colour as a subjective experience, and use this as proof that colour is a subjective experience. Personally I believe that the magenta toner in my printer remains magenta toner, even when I'm not looking at it.
Posted by narnie83 (# 11009) on
:
Read Kierkegaard, he has lots to say on all these matters. Quite rudely, usually. Bless him.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
For those of us without the time and patience to read Kierkegaard, would you be able to summarise the pertinant parts of his writing for us?
Posted by Wolfgang (# 10809) on
:
quote:
You mean you believe the account of others who may or may not have existed, who allegedly claim he did.
Or are you saying God descended right in front of your very own eyes?
I mean, of course, the accounts of others. Its not a matter of "they may or may not have existed"...evidently someone somewhere did exist who wrote down accounts of Jesus' life and hence existed. It may be true that we don't know everything there is to know about the NT writers, but whoever they were I think the evidence to suggest they were followers of Jesus is overwhelming.
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
Hosting
quote:
Originally posted by dinghy sailor:
Well, I've quite frankly got better things to do than waste my time with a campaigning, unlistening jerk like you who talks alot of crap.
We provide a perfectly good forum listed just below this one for posting personal attacks. Per the Ship's third commandment, this is completely out of line in Purgatory.
RuthW
Purgatory host
Posted by narnie83 (# 11009) on
:
I would recommend reading Kierkegaard himself because the polemical and complicated nature of his writings aren't best suited to being summarised, and are pretty rewarding.
I am writing my undergraduate dissertation on Kierkegaard's ideas on and use of Scripture, so there's an awful lot I could say!
But what struck me most as pertinent points is his arguments in Concluding Unscientific Postscript about faith and a reasoned belief based on evidence have little to do with each other and are really incommensurable: the importance of faith is that it is a leap, and if you believe on evidence your faith could be subject to change, because another bit of evidence might come along. There is too much at stake in matters of religion to leave it to historical-criticism, natural theology, etc.
But I think this aspect of his religious thought has been stressed at the expense of the idea that faith is not assent to a doctrine, faith is lived by the individual. So far, so Lutheran. The difference with Kierkegaard is that religious truth is not something that can be known objectively, it is something that is lived. The teachings of the Bible and Christianity can only be understood in practice, through imitation of Christ (though this must go hand in hand with Christ as Redeemer). Faith does not come from scholarly deliberation, for it is a decision, a decision about yourself, and all essential decision is rooted in subjectivity.
As regards the Bible, in a book called For Self-Examination he wrote a discourse about using the Bible as a mirror to look at yourself and your life with (an individualistic version of Calvin's spectacles of Scripture), and to do this see it as a letter from one's beloved. You have to read it, read it as if it were to you, sitting down quibbling over the words and historical details is not really reading it, as one would read a letter. Yes there are difficult passages in the Bible, but there are plenty of straightforward ones, and until we can be satisfied that we've lived in accordance with the straightforward ones (not something many of us reach), then we can start judging the Bible. Before that, we must use it to judge ourselves.
Judge ourselves, not other people - in parts of this thread people are talking about dogma onsalvation, faith and deeds, etc. It reminded me of a Kierkegaard discourse called 'Love will be known by its fruits' in Works of Love, in which he points out that 'the tree shall be known by its fruits is meant to tell us that how we act shows how we are, not as something to judge other people with and/or beat them down with it. As David is horrified by Nathan's parable and righteously angry at the nameless man, before Nathan says 'you are the man!' the passage on a tree being known by its fruits says 'you are the tree!'
*I'm saying what Kierkegaard says here, not what I think. I can't answer for him. Read him, he's much more convincing than me. I don't know what bits are relevant to which bits of this long and occasionally aggressive thread. Just my tuppence worth. I'm new and scared of flaming!
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
Thanks narnie83, I can certainly see where some of the ideas of Kierkegaard would be relevant to this thread. And, I've now some pointers where to look if I get myself down to a decent library and check some books out (though I suspect they could easily be above my head, and I honestly doubt I'll have enough time - which is a perpetual problem). In the absense of actually having read anything, I'm going to have to just comment on your summary.
quote:
Originally posted by narnie83:
But what struck me most as pertinent points is his arguments in Concluding Unscientific Postscript about faith and a reasoned belief based on evidence have little to do with each other and are really incommensurable: the importance of faith is that it is a leap, and if you believe on evidence your faith could be subject to change, because another bit of evidence might come along.
This strikes me as a different definition of faith than I'd be comfortable with. Yes, ultimately faith involves taking a step beyond what is known (as the writer to the Hebrews put it, "certainty in what is unseen"). But, for me, that step is taken from a basis of what is known, or at least what you're fairly sure of. That is, the basis for faith is reasoned belief based on evidence. Also, note I said "step" not "leap" - though some people do leap, I don't think it's necessary and a series of small steps gets you there just as well.
Also, I'm not at all sure on his concerns about faith changing if based, partly at least, on evidence. What's wrong with new information changing your faith? Maybe it's the scientist in me, but I don't think of faith as something dogmatically held regardless of the evidence. Rather, faith is something tentatively held on the basis of the evidence.
quote:
But I think this aspect of his religious thought has been stressed at the expense of the idea that faith is not assent to a doctrine, faith is lived by the individual. So far, so Lutheran. The difference with Kierkegaard is that religious truth is not something that can be known objectively, it is something that is lived. The teachings of the Bible and Christianity can only be understood in practice, through imitation of Christ (though this must go hand in hand with Christ as Redeemer). Faith does not come from scholarly deliberation, for it is a decision, a decision about yourself, and all essential decision is rooted in subjectivity.
I was with him, more or less, all the way there, until the "all essential decision is rooted in subjectivity" where I'm afraid I don't quite see why a decision has to be subjective. If he means it's a decision I make then fine, but I'm afraid I think I'd disagree if he was claiming decisions can't be made based on objective criteria.
I'd also say that "religious truth is not something that can be known objectively, it is something that is lived" doesn't quite ring true for me either. Certainly religious truth is something that is lived. But, I think there's also an element of objectivity in the knowing of that truth.
I'm thinking that where I'm disagreeing here is also highlighting some of where I'm having problems with what mrmister is saying.
quote:
Just my tuppence worth. I'm new and scared of flaming!
And, a good tuppence it was too. Carry on like that and I see no danger of being flamed. Disagreed with, possibly. But, it's not much of a discussion if people don't disagree about something.
Posted by narnie83 (# 11009) on
:
quote:
faith is something tentatively held on the basis of the evidence
For me (not our Soren) the evidence of faith is the faith that I have, i.e. I believe because of experience of prayer, the sense of holiness, just that belief in God that I have in my gut. That's not believing for no reason, it's just a reason-less reason, if you like. If it wasn't there then my belief in God would be like tossing a coin, and without having any reason I suspect it would be bereft of content as well. But I myself wouldn't get faith from scientific 'evidence', like the design or the cosmological arguments for God's existence, because the 'evidence' they cite could mean any number of things. That said, I think philosophically it's not unreasonable to claim that they do point towards a creator or a rationale behind the universe, but can tell us absolutely nothing about that creator. And I've never been inclined to believe from the evidence of Gospels, I guess I believe the account because
I already believe.
Posted by mrmister (# 10850) on
:
quote:
I've never been inclined to believe from the evidence of Gospels, I guess I believe the account because I already believe.
I agree.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0