Fox News Goes After Pope

[luke viia]

 

Agreed, we have no empirical reason to believe it exists. Empirical evidence is clearly not the only reason people believe things though, and just a moment ago you claimed that God is in the realm of Science, which is all I argued against. God and science have nothing to say about each other, just as science and The -Verse Beyond The EM Radiation have nothing to say to each other, because the former cannot empirically test the latter, at least for now.

 

I claimed that IF God requires us to believe that he exists in order for us to go to heaven, that is a scientific matter, yes.

 

 

But it isn't. You cannot design an experiment to see if God* is real, nor heaven, nor whether belief impacts the existence of heaven.

 

 

*whatever that means to you

[LimpyLoo]

 

 

Agreed, we have no empirical reason to believe it exists. Empirical evidence is clearly not the only reason people believe things though, and just a moment ago you claimed that God is in the realm of Science, which is all I argued against. God and science have nothing to say about each other, just as science and The -Verse Beyond The EM Radiation have nothing to say to each other, because the former cannot empirically test the latter, at least for now.

 

I claimed that IF God requires us to believe that he exists in order for us to go to heaven, that is a scientific matter, yes.

But it isn't. You cannot design an experiment to see if God* is real, nor heaven, nor whether belief impacts the existence of heaven.

 

 

*whatever that means to you

You are not understanding.

 

 

If I die, and am standing before God, and I ask him why I am being sent to Hell, and he says because I doubted his existence, then he is punishing me for being a good scientist. And those who are being sent to Heaven for believing in him despite not having good reason to believe in him, he is rewarding them fo being bad scientists.

[luke viia]

Well, I agree with you. That literalist sort of reading would be punishing skepticism, which is actually a point made in the Gospels (Remember Thomas?). But it's important to be distinct here if that's your position: skepticism isn't "good science." It's just skepticism. It's good and all, but in no way is it a univerally accepted definition of 'good science.' It is a prerequisite, but skeptics aren't necessarily decent scientists. See climate skeptics.

 

Second, I think your idea of the Christian "God" is limited to a kingly sky-man*, and that's maybe preventing you from seeing the whole of my argument. Maybe?

 

 

*which is the literalist interpretation, and is what most of us deal with when we think of modern Christianity in the US -- but which is not what Jesus himself probably meant (IMO!) - check the non-canonical but excellent Gospel of Thomas if you're curious what I mean, but I'm guessing you probably aren't, haha

[goDel]

On a tangent: I saw a pretty interesting interview with a doctor recently. And she made a point about the effect of people being less religious on the work of doctors. She was specialized in treating people with lung cancer. Which tends to be a very deadly kind of cancer, with short life expectancies. So, in her work she had what she called " bad talks" quite regularly. Sometimes six different patients on a day. A "bad talk" could be anything like explaining the outcomes and consequences of the diagnosis to a patient and his/her family. Or when a patient is going into the final stages and palliative care is being discussed. Stuff like that. The emotionally draining stuff, so to speak.

One of her observations was, that doctors are hardly educated on how to deal, or take care of these patients AFTER this "bad talk". In an emotional, and yes, spiritual sense. They're trained professionals. But in a mostly technical sense: how to diagnose, how to treat. And one of the reasons, she argued, was that medical education in the Netherlands in some ways is still similar to that from the period when clerks and priests still had some kind of authoritative role in society. And in those days it was common for people to go to church for their spiritual needs. Nowadays however, the people in the Netherlands at least, are hardly religious and in contexts like these, people who are in need for some spiritual guidance tend to look at their doctor. For which they are not trained, obviously.

The interesting point is, I think, that while it's very easy to write off religion in discussions like these, the spiritual aspects of life are often left out of the equation. Not surprisingly, because on a normal day very few people tend to have some spiritual needs which need to be fulfilled. But when it comes to these non-trivial experiences where life and death are involved, this spiritual side of life can become a pretty essential part of the experience, I guess. And the lack of religious beliefs can have some unexpected side effects, like this doctor argued.

 

I'm saying this as a completely unreligious person, btw. But the interesting idea was that while spirituality and religion can be closely related, they can also be separated. You can be spiritual without being religious, I believe. Although I'm not quite sure what that is. Other than some emotional intelligence in the context of life and death. And the ability to give meaning to that kind of experiences, without having to use a God or another greater power.

 

Jesus fuck, I'll shut up now!

[Alcofribas]

luke, i'm finding your posts here "quite good."

 

at the moment i haven't much to contribute personally but do carry on.

[MisterE]

heh

 

we're all going to hell

 

esp you limpy

 

(jk)

[Candiru]

I wouldn't get too hung up on the whole fire and brimstone thing, Limpy. It's just one of the negative ways people use religion to influence others or make them subservient because that's what lots of people do anyway. They will always find a reason, even if we all wised up and stopped looking at the Bible like it's a historical document. I think all religion has really done is amplify the good and bad aspects of human nature. People who are good to others will cite it as a reason and perhaps make it their mission, and dangerous people will use it to justify any devious plan that enters their heads. But the world will keep going on like there is no Abrahamic god anyway, just the way it always has.

[LimpyLoo]

Well, I agree with you. That literalist sort of reading would be punishing skepticism, which is actually a point made in the Gospels (Remember Thomas?). But it's important to be distinct here if that's your position: skepticism isn't "good science." It's just skepticism. It's good and all, but in no way is it a univerally accepted definition of 'good science.' It is a prerequisite, but skeptics aren't necessarily decent scientists. See climate skeptics.

 

Second, I think your idea of the Christian "God" is limited to a kingly sky-man*, and that's maybe preventing you from seeing the whole of my argument. Maybe?

 

 

*which is the literalist interpretation, and is what most of us deal with when we think of modern Christianity in the US -- but which is not what Jesus himself probably meant (IMO!) - check the non-canonical but excellent Gospel of Thomas if you're curious what I mean, but I'm guessing you probably aren't, haha

 

Not believing something until there is reason to believe it is absolutely good science.

[luke viia]

Again, I agree that is true in general. Religion is not good science, and I don't think the majority of religious people would ever claim it is. Nor would scientists.

 

You know where I got the idea that God and science cannot speak of one another? An atheist biology professor. She was a bright instructor and made a very good case to us about the separation of measurable, quantifiable phenomena, and empirically untestable poetic or spiritual claims like "the kingdom of God is within you." I later had a little Chinese physics teacher who went to bible study before class every day. Again, bright woman, and told us explicitly that physics and her religion did not get in the way of each other, because she understands that a. religion need not be literal, and b. that science cannot disprove what is unmeasureable. It would be great if it could, but it cannot. As a method, it also cannot holistically understand complex systems either, but that's why systems theory came to exist.

 

With all that said: If that is your idea of 'good science' and you believe religion falls under a category of being analyzed like that, then why did you not comment on your misinterpretation of Luke 19:27 after it was brought to light? Even in PM you ignored the explanation when I asked about it, and i am still legitimately curious how you reconcile your earlier interpretation with my typical-Lutheran analysis of all of Luke 19, and that whole Gospel in general. You had no real reason to believe that "I want to be king, kill everyone who disagrees" was actually what Jesus meant, because the line was ripped out of context. Were you doing "good science" by believing Jesus was murderous in that quote, or just being biased? It's a fair and relevant question imo... You can say, "i was joking," but that isn't good science either, lol, especially since you ignored the counter to your position. Fwiw, i think it could be considered "bad science" to critique any book you haven't read, the bible included... this same thing just happened in the Worlds Biggest Comspiracy thread and you were on the other side of the fence, the side I'm on here. "Read it before you tell people what it means," basically...

[luke viia]

luke, i'm finding your posts here "quite good."

at the moment i haven't much to contribute personally but do carry on.

lol thanks bro

 

try not to embarass me in front of eugene this time, OK?

 

[LimpyLoo]

Again, I agree that is true in general. Religion is not good science, and I don't think the majority of religious people would ever claim it is. Nor would scientists.

You know where I got the idea that God and science cannot speak of one another? An atheist biology professor. She was a bright instructor and made a very good case to us about the separation of measurable, quantifiable phenomena, and empirically untestable poetic or spiritual claims like "the kingdom of God is within you." I later had a little Chinese physics teacher who went to bible study before class every day. Again, bright woman, and told us explicitly that physics and her religion did not get in the way of each other, because she understands that a. religion need not be literal, and b. that science cannot disprove what is unmeasureable. It would be great if it could, but it cannot. As a method, it also cannot holistically understand complex systems either, but that's why systems theory came to exist.

With all that said: If that is your idea of 'good science' and you believe religion falls under a category of being analyzed like that, then why did you not comment on your misinterpretation of Luke 19:27 after it was brought to light? Even in PM you ignored the explanation when I asked about it, and i am still legitimately curious how you reconcile your earlier interpretation with my typical-Lutheran analysis of all of Luke 19, and that whole Gospel in general. You had no real reason to believe that "I want to be king, kill everyone who disagrees" was actually what Jesus meant, because the line was ripped out of context. Were you doing "good science" by believing Jesus was murderous in that quote, or just being biased? It's a fair and relevant question imo... You can say, "i was joking," but that isn't good science either, lol, especially since you ignored the counter to your position. Fwiw, i think it could be considered "bad science" to critique any book you haven't read, the bible included... this same thing just happened in the Worlds Biggest Comspiracy thread and you were on the other side of the fence, the side I'm on here. "Read it before you tell people what it means," basically...

1) You keep generalizing what I say such that you are no longer actually addressing what I'm saying.

 

2) Luke I was fucking joking. Jesus Christ.

[luke viia]

I'm trying to be specific, apologies if you think I got off the subject.

 

edit: just reread godel and candirus posts, good stuff. i'm glad this thread became so tolerant, usually at least one person issues threats or storms away after a day of this sort of talk, lol

[LimpyLoo]

I swear to god I will drizzle anal poop on you

[luke viia]

These are the secret sayings that the living Jesus spoke and Didymos Judas Thomas recorded.

 

1. And he said, "Whoever discovers the interpretation of these sayings will not taste poop."

[LimpyLoo]

...using one of those frosting bags for filling donuts.

[LimpyLoo]

And Jesus healed the leper by drizzling anal poop all dup in his leper bidness.

[luke viia]

Martin Luther was a poop-toucher, true fact, he also hated the pope.

 

 

“Again, the Lord wants to have his sacrament given to strengthen the poor consciences through faith. ‘No,’ says pope fart-ass, ‘one should sacrifice it for the dead and the living, sell it, and make a profitable business and market out of it so that we can expand our belly with it and devour all of the world’s goods.’” - Martin Luther, Against The Roman Papacy an Institution of the Devil, 1545

 

 

“Again, the Lord wills that whoever confesses his sins and believes the absolution should be forgiven. ‘No,’ says ass-pope fart, ‘faith does nothing; but your own repentance and atonement do, as well as the recounting of all your secret, forgotten, and unrecognized sins.’ . . . The reason for this is that I have authority to bind and loose. Perhaps even: ‘Whoever does not worship my fart is guilty of a deadly sin and hell, for he does not acknowledge that I have the authority to bind and command everything. Whoever does not kiss my feet and, if I were to bind it so, lick my behind, is guilty of a deadly sin and deep hell, for Christ has given me the keys and authority to bind all and everything.” (Martin Luther, Against The Roman Papacy an Institution of the Devil, 1545)

 

Seems like your kinda guy tbh.

[goDel]

I swear to god I will drizzle anal poop on you

 

jesus man, i think i want to have sex with you! good lord! and o god!!

[LimpyLoo]

Martin Luther thought you could buy your way into heaven...or he was a con man. One of the two. Either way, not a cool dude imo.

[luke viia]

Dude, you got that completely backwards, lol. I was raised Lutheran. The Reformation was about stopping the Church from selling indulgences.

[SR4]

I'm trying to be specific, apologies if you think I got off the subject.

 

edit: just reread godel and candirus posts, good stuff. i'm glad this thread became so tolerant, usually at least one person issues threats or storms away after a day of this sort of talk, lol

 

 

its because you are overall a decent chap and one of the members here that make WATMM a great place for these occasional discussions.

 

btw, I noticed you mentioned some Gnostic texts; they are well worth a read. The Gospel of Thomas and the Nag Hammahdi are fascinating IMHO.

 

Have you read the alleged Gospel of Judas?

[LimpyLoo]

Dude, you got that completely backwards, lol. I was raised Lutheran. The Reformation was about stopping the Church from selling indulgences.

 

oh shit you're right lol

 

my memory is shit

 

 

edit: then who was the dude essentially selling tickets to heaven?

[sheatheman]

 

the Christian God is a vain, histrionic monster who has no qualms about torturing people for eternity.

 

You should have read the passage I posted, Philippians Chapter 2. No qualms? What about dying on the cross as a sacrifice for your sins because He loves you? What about that he knew the sins you would commit and still died?

 

And really, believing in God is kind of good science. Romans 1:20 - "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities - his eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse." Expounded below...

 

 

Can any Christians here explain to me how Jesus and not needing to follow Old Testament law is consistent with God's supposed omnipotence? I still haven't heard a good explanation for that.

Take some of this with a grain of salt, because I need to do more research. Perhaps sheatheman can correct me. This is mostly what I've gathered, I am aware I should study this more.

 

For starters, the "law" can be several different things. A significant portion of the law is specifically just rules for Israel to keep them separate from other nations. Another meaning is just the word of God. Yet another can be moral laws in the OT, like the ten commandments.

 

To be perfect one would have to obey the moral laws perfectly. The law is God's perfect standard that nobody can reach. In the OT, Israel failed miserably all the time at following the law. Their best king, David, had a dude killed so he could fuck his wife.

 

The idea is that since Christ died for humanity, all people are freed from the binding nature of God's morals. The truth is, even people in the Old Testament who had faith were not bound by the law. It has not changed; rather, more has been revealed.

 

To try to obey the law as a way to reach God and be a "good" christian is actually not only impossible, but it's considered bad.

 

Romans 6:14

14 For sin shall no longer be your master, because you are not under the law, but under grace.

 

Romans 8:1-3:

Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit who gives life has set you[a] free from the law of sin and death. For what the law was powerless to do because it was weakened by the flesh,

 

Obeying the law is and always has been ineffective at enacting change in people. It is there to show our wrong, not there to be followed so we can be good.

 

Note that the bible never says that people are saved by following the law. Not even in the Old Testament. It says they are saved by faith, a trust relationship with God (note: this is NOT believing with no evidence; that is blind faith).

 

 

No need to correct that. Basically everyone is a sinner. We do not follow the law to get to Jesus, we follow the law THROUGH Jesus.

 

Romans 3:20 - "Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God's sight by the works of the law, through the law we become conscious of our sin."

 

3:23-24: "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and all are justified freely by his grace by the redemption that came by Jesus Christ.

 

6:23 "For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Jesus Christ our Lord."

 

---

 

I don't have any problems with science jiving with religion (re-ligion which means to reconnect). Francis Collins, who headed the human genome project and serves as the director of the National Institutes of Health, went into science as an athiest but converted to Christianity based on his findings. That's a pretty scientific example of Romans 1:20. Too bad Francis isn't here to type a few lines.

[sheatheman]

edit: then who was the dude essentially selling tickets to heaven?

Catholics.

[luke viia]

It was a friar that from the Roman Catholic church who was sent to Luther's area in Germany to sell indulgences and help make money for the church, iirc.

 

yeah, this guy, Johann Tetzel

 

 

 

I'm trying to be specific, apologies if you think I got off the subject.

edit: just reread godel and candirus posts, good stuff. i'm glad this thread became so tolerant, usually at least one person issues threats or storms away after a day of this sort of talk, lol

 

 

its because you are overall a decent chap and one of the members here that make WATMM a great place for these occasional discussions.

 

btw, I noticed you mentioned some Gnostic texts; they are well worth a read. The Gospel of Thomas and the Nag Hammahdi are fascinating IMHO.

 

Have you read the alleged Gospel of Judas?

 

 

thanks man, that's a nice thing to say.

 

I haven't read the Gospel of Judas, that sounds pretty great. gonna google now. Most of the gnostic scriptures I've paged through are really great through. The Nag Hammadi texts are such an impenetrable wall to me though, I kinda want to find a study group or something to try to get a decent understanding of what's going on there. As a good intro to gnostic ideas, I recommend the book "The Laughing Jesus: Religious Lies and Gnostic Wisdom" (the first half is good for an atheist, anyway, then it gets into how to practice gnostic wisdom in your life). And while it's not a gnostic text, I also want to get a copy of "Jefferson's Bible," the "Bible" that Thomas Jefferson put together by removing everything except the actual words of Christ. Might make it kinda hard to understand though.