A Rare Victory

[Linguofreak]

<soapbox>
Well, the difference is that a doctor wouldn't pull out a flamethrower and torture the patient over and over for days, weeks, years, centuries, millennia, ad infinitum just because the patient didn't pay attention to the right doctor.

Well at this point the analogy breaks down, because the disease itself is listening to the wrong doctor. In the patient/doctor analogy, the patient only goes to the doctor once he starts feeling sick. With God and Man, there was an existing relationship between God and Man, and the point where Man got sick was when he said, "Screw God," walked out, and started making up his own gods that were more to his liking. Also, in the patient doctor analogy, the closest analog to Hell is a combination of the fact that the patient feels excruciating pain on account of his symptoms, and the fact that he eventually dies.

When it comes to religions, there are hundreds (if not thousands) of different "doctors." Each "doctor" has his own "diagnosis" of "what is wrong with you and what you must do to 'get well', and more importantly, avoid a particular kind of eternal torment." Furthermore, as you grow up your parents, school, peers, or whomever are telling you about "the one TRUE doctor that you must listen to!" And if you don't listen to the right doctor, the "one true doctor" will torture you for all eternity because you weren't psychic enough to determine who the "right" doctor was despite being told by 99% of your peers that the other doctor was right. Does this sound like "justice?" Speaking personally (and I think this would apply to 99%+ of all humans) I am appalled at the idea of torturing anyone, even the world's worst criminal.

If 99% of your friends tell you you need an acupuncturist (or other brand of quack of your choice), and what you really need is a doctor to deal with your cancer, you will die.

Remember, Man's crime is seeing the evidence that there is a God (and who he is), and ignoring it. According to Romans 1, such evidence is present even in nature.

Even better than the accupuncturist analogy is if the patient buys a degree in Medicine from some degree mill for himself or one of his friends, and then has that "doctor" treat him.

 

[bujin]

Remember, Man's crime is seeing the evidence that there is a God (and who he is), and ignoring it. According to Romans 1, such evidence is present even in nature.

The question would be why God has gone to so much trouble to hide his existence over the past 2000 years, and to make it look to sceptics that he does not exist.

 

[jedidia]

indeed, I ask myself that question quite a lot... :dry:

He really could have made things easier. On the other hand, I really liked Douglas Adams ironic remark on that part: Since Faith has to exist without proof and God cannot exist without faith, and it is clearly proven that God exists, God does not exist. :rofl:

In other words: I doubt that a clear proof of Gods existence would help the situation. Just that certain christian would have one reason more to establish a theocracy.

Edit: A slight incorrectnes in your formulation: God has not gone through trouble to hide his existance per se... he merely went through a lot of trouble to hide proof of his existence.

 

[Urwumpe]

Maybe god is just ashamed of the people who say loud that they believe in him...

 

[n0mad23]

Be careful that anti-fundamentalism doesn't become fundamentalist.

Remember, state of the art medicine used to be the bleeding of humors.

 

[Linguofreak]

The question would be why God has gone to so much trouble to hide his existence over the past 2000 years, and to make it look to sceptics that he does not exist.

And exactly what I've been saying is that he has been going to quite alot of trouble to make his existence obvious, but the skeptics have been ignoring it.

 

[Linguofreak]

indeed, I ask myself that question quite a lot... :dry:

He really could have made things easier. On the other hand, I really liked Douglas Adams ironic remark on that part: Since Faith has to exist without proof and God cannot exist without faith, and it is clearly proven that God exists, God does not exist. :rofl:

In other words: I doubt that a clear proof of Gods existence would help the situation. Just that certain christian would have one reason more to establish a theocracy.

Edit: A slight incorrectnes in your formulation: God has not gone through trouble to hide his existance per se... he merely went through a lot of trouble to hide proof of his existence.

Douglas Adams made quite a funny comment there, but nothing in Christian theology says that God cannot exist without faith. What you will find is that Man cannot have a right relationship with God without faith.

 

[dbeachy1]

Also, in the patient doctor analogy, the closest analog to Hell is a combination of the fact that the patient feels excruciating pain on account of his symptoms, and the fact that he eventually dies.

The difference is that it is the doctor who is causing the torture -- it is a matter of intent to torture on the part of the doctor, either directly or indirectly. Here is an analogy: the "patient" wakes up in a circular room with 100 doors, and he is taught that each door leads to a different doctor. However, each of the 100 doctors claims to be the One True Doctor, and that choosing the wrong door will result in eternal torture. In addition, there are stacks of books teaching about each doctor, each purporting that a different doctor is One True Doctor.

Now, let's say that doctor #27 is God and the other 99 doctors are false. That means that doctor #27 built the room and also built a huge flaming torture pit around the entire room, hidden behind the doors. Door #27 leads to eternal bliss, but the other 99 doors open over the flaming torture pit. After a number of years the patient is forced to open a door. If he refuses to open any door, the room's floor falls out and the patient falls into the flaming pit anyway.

So we could say that "The doctor doesn't want to torture the patient," but since the doctor built the room, built the flaming pit, put the patient in the room, and forced the patient to choose a door, it is therefore still the doctor's intent to torture patients who make the wrong choice.

Also, what could possibly be the purpose of eternal torment? The purpose of punishment is to teach correct behavior, allowing for better behavior the next time. However, eternal torment without end could serve no possible purpose.

 

[bujin]

And exactly what I've been saying is that he has been going to quite alot of trouble to make his existence obvious, but the skeptics have been ignoring it.

Can you give me an example of where his existence has been shown that cannot be attributed to a natural event?

I forget which ones you mentioned earlier, but IIRC, they were things that were written in the Bible, and that can hardly be called an accurate source of information.

 

[Urwumpe]

Also, what could possibly be the purpose of eternal torment? The purpose of punishment is to teach correct behavior, allowing for better behavior the next time. However, eternal torment without end could serve no possible purpose.

Yes - that is why the concept of sin and hell got a hard show stopper in the person of Jesus. Basically, the message got changed to: I will take your punishment, I will die for your sins.

Now, you can argue a lot about it (And I am sure, my theological background knowledge is weaker as my faith), but I think for me personally, it is as much gift as deed. First of all, it means for me, that I can only sin for myself. All my sins are automatically forgiven, but the knowledge of the sins remains.

Next aspect, as I understand it, is that this forgiveness of sins comes for free. You don't need to believe in god or Jesus to be forgiven. Maybe, it is also an increase in strength for those christians, who think similar about it as I do. We don't fear god or his wrath, we fear the look into the mirror to see ourself. The image of the tortured Jesus in our churches is thus, not a warning for us, that we could have the same fate, but a reminder, that each of our sins increases the suffering of Jesus. And people who love, should not do that to the people or spiritual figure, they love. You must not do that, but you can do good. You will be loved by the guys up there, regardless what you make out of your life and eternal soul. Even if you are a satanist. True love demands that you love unconditionally and I was told that I can expect true love from god.

(Cough. No, I am not possessed by ar81. :blink

Of course, this is my understanding, and I admit, "good Christian" would be somewhere at the end of the list of attributes, I could but on my card. Also, I am sure I misunderstand something, as most songs sung our churches sound like a lament, even if the topic of the song is happy and celebrating. I maybe still have to learn a lot about it. But I think, and I am sure god agrees, that I have more things to learn in life to become a good human.

 

[jedidia]

Douglas Adams made quite a funny comment there, but nothing in Christian theology says that God cannot exist without faith. What you will find is that Man cannot have a right relationship with God without faith.

Of course you are right. There was no theological intention behind the statement. All it points out is that even if a proof of Gods existance was found, people would find ways to lead it ad absurdum.

@dbeachy:

The analogy has one slight glitch: The patient will not sit in his room alone. There will be doctors coming out of every door, trying to convince him that they're the right doctor. nnow, you can wonder about the intentions of those.

One of these doctors however came out and said "ok, if you don't believe my words, maybe you'll believe my deeds..." And he takes a nail out of his pocket, sticks it through his hand and walks back to his door, marking the trail with his dripping blood. Before entering the door again he says: "You see the trail... if you find trust, follow it and enter whenever you like."

Agreed, this is neither scientific nor rethoricly quite correct nor does it disprove your central point (that the doctor built the whole complex in the first place). However, THIS is why I came to faith... not logic.

 

[GregBurch]

You don't need to believe in god or Jesus to be forgiven.

I'd be curious to know what the other Christians on this thread think about that statement.

 

[dbeachy1]

The analogy has one slight glitch: The patient will not sit in his room alone. There will be doctors coming out of every door, trying to convince him that they're the right doctor. nnow, you can wonder about the intentions of those.

One of these doctors however came out and said "ok, if you don't believe my words, maybe you'll believe my deeds..." And he takes a nail out of his pocket, sticks it through his hand and walks back to his door, marking the trail with his dripping blood. Before entering the door again he says: "You see the trail... if you find trust, follow it and enter whenever you like."

Well, to put an even finer point on it, the patient cannot actually see any of the 100 doctors: all he can do is read about each different doctor in the stack of books in the room, plus he can talk to his friends and family anytime he wants to. For some patients, their family and peers insist that doctor #84 is the One True Doctor. For other patients, it's doctor #39, etc. And for some patients, their peers will shun them or even shoot them if they choose a doctor different from doctor #58: for those patients, that's a pretty strong incentive to choose doctor #58. So the patient has to make up his mind by weighing the information in the stack of books, what he was taught by his family, and the fear of being ostracized by his peers.

Let me say, however, that I do agree that some good things do come out of most religions: for example, love your neighbor, be good to people who hurt you, be honest, etc. What bothers me is the fear of eternal torment that many religions teach. Speaking personally, I have seen friends of mine become very upset and worried because some people they knew "chose the wrong door," and it just tore them up inside. And it never gets better because they are convinced that their friends are suffering eternally now.

 

[jedidia]

I'd be curious to know what the other Christians on this thread think about that statement.

It depends on the denomination, really...

Evangelicals would throw you out of church for such a statement, while in liberal protestantism it is not really a problem...

Theologicaly, it is not quite clear. There are alot of references even in the new testament where people get saved without faith, merely for having a natural intuition for right and wrong. It also says "not everyone that calls "lord, lord" shall be saved", meaning that not necessarily everyone that simply agrees to biblical dogmas will automaticaly be saved (as is popular view among evangelicals) "..but those who do the will of my father in heaven". The will of the father in heaven on the other hand can be backtraced all through the bible, even the old testament, where it sais "I don't want your sacrifices, but justice", refering to social unjustice. And of course the famous "love your neighbour as yourself" from jesus. Also, as a young man asked jesus "what must I do to inherit eternal live" Jesus lists some of the ten commandements. On a closer look one notices that he actually lists only those refering to social rules, not those refering to the religion per se.

So, yes, it is possible to have a theology that doesn't neccesarily need a direct faith in Jesus to grant salvation. However, it won't be accepted in a lot of denominations.
Now something that is theologically NOT sound would be saying that EVERYONE gets saved, no matter what. There is no referance to that.

Also, biblical language allows the conclusion that hell might not be eternal, but after a time of punishement the souls fade into inexistance (they don't go to heaven, though). Again, there won't be much denominations accepting this point of view, but I found no way to fully debunk the theory, so I have to consider it acceptable.

all he can do is read about each different doctor in the stack of books in the room, plus he can talk to his friends and family anytime he wants to. For some patients, their family and peers insist that doctor #84 is the One True Doctor. For other patients, it's doctor #39, etc. And for some patients, their peers will shun them or even shoot them if they choose a doctor different from doctor #58: for those patients, that's a pretty strong incentive to choose doctor #58. So the patient has to make up his mind by weighing the information in the stack of books, what he was taught by his family, and the fear of being ostracized by his peers.

I'm afraid that about covers it, yes...
Just that sometimes God actually talks. Not talk per se, but reveals himself to some people in different forms. But here the whole thing gets very metaphysical, and this sure isn't the place to discuss metaphysics. So, as far as a worldview that doesn't imply the supernatural goes, you are perfectly correct.

 

[GregBurch]

It depends on the denomination, really...

So ... some people say "yes," some say "no," each claiming some kind of authority for their position, either inspired scripture or direct personal experience of a deity, but neither of which is subject to any kind of extrinsic confirmation.

Obviously, if I HAD to choose one of these positions, I would choose the one that granted me the greatest liberty, constrained my actions in the least possible way, and made me feel as good as possible -- so, no weird dietary restrictions, no bizarre child-marriage mandated by the gods, no heavy tithing, and lots and lots of forgiveness and goodwill toward my fellow man, while at the same time providing a personal god who cares about me personally in all my mortal suffering and promises transcendent bliss in an eternal life after death. Why isn't the whole world Anglican?

You know, if you see ideas themselves as evolving things competing with one another for space in human brains and control over behavior that can cause the ideas to reproduce and propagate, it seems that an appealing notion like this would come along eventually and be wildly successful. It wouldn't have to have any correspondence with actual truth, just satisfy these conditions. Such a "memetic" code would best be sheathed in a coat of mystery and vagueness to ward off skepticism, and aid in delivery into human brains. I wonder what such a set of ideas would look like?

GB, THHotA

 

[SiameseCat]

I'd be curious to know what the other Christians on this thread think about that statement.

I agree with Urwumpe. For example, what happens to someone who is never exposed to christianity, but meets all the other conditions for entrance into heaven? What happens to someone like Moses, who believed in God but did not know Jesus existed?

Linguofreak: How has God made his existence obvious? And which God are we talking about here? I certainly don't see any way to determine if God is Catholic, Lutheran, evangelical, Jewish, or belongs to any other religion.

 

[Andy44]

Well, according to South Park, Mormonism is the correct religion!

Anyway, modernism is, like it or not, tied to christianity. Most people believe in some sort of religion, and that their god is a higher authority than the state. John Locke's theories on liberty and the right to revolt against tyrants were based, at least in part, on the idea that a king derives his just powers from God and that a king who oversteps his authority is eligible for removal from the throne. Locke's phraseology went something like, when the people can no longer appeal to the sovereign for redress of grievances, than they must "appeal to heaven and take up arms". The phrase "an appeal to heaven" was to appear on some of the flags of the American rebels in the 1770s, which of course led to a very secular and liberal (old definition) society in which atheists and religionists are free to bicker without killing each other.

So I'm not completely down on religion, as it appears to have its use as a check against state power. There's a reason why communists tried to supress all religion, and it had little to do with fostering a society of reason and logic.

Just keep your religion out of my face, please, and we'll get along fine.

 

[jedidia]

So ... some people say "yes," some say "no," each claiming some kind of authority for their position, either inspired scripture or direct personal experience of a deity, but neither of which is subject to any kind of extrinsic confirmation.

well yeah, that's where it all ends up of course.

That's why a book as a foundation of a religion isn't such a bad thing, baecause it restricts at least some ideas. Until of course someone shows up claiming to have had visions in which God told him that he changed his mind again. Which is where I go off.

There is a big difference between theology and visions. While one is an Act of logical argument (wheather the basis of that argument, i.e. the respective book, is sound or not is a different story of course), the other lacks any basis at all and in the end does not require faith in God, but having faith in the person having the vision. Plus, even for someone that gained influence through a true vision, the temptation is just too big to make up another one for gaining even more.


But of course the variety of possible interpretations of the Bible is "bad" enough. One thing that is important to me is that an exegesis follows the spirit of the Bible. Of course allready this is an interpretation that depends majorly on what your God looks like. This is where, theologicaly, the holy spirit comes in for guidance, but that goes of to meta physics again.

In general we can say that if metaphysics are not part of our worldview, we won't see any possibility how God could interact with the world. Which is of course the cracking point, because there is no physical evidence of the existence of metaphysics. Which is where the whole thing comes down to faith again. So yeah, for someone not believing, it must look like foolishness. The bible actually confirms that, and sometimes I wonder why we want to make it look like something very intelligent...

Well, according to South Park, Mormonism is the correct religion!

Having seen a few episodes of Southpark, I rather got the impression that their religion is moronism...

 

[Urwumpe]

Now something that is theologically NOT sound would be saying that EVERYONE gets saved, no matter what. There is no reference to that.

What about the Sermon on the Mount?

It as a clean definition which kind of behavior is not appreciated - following the rituals and virtues only for looking good in the eyes of god.

 

[simonpro]

Yep -- this explains the police protection required for those Danes who made the mistake of drawing pictures of one particularly kindly religious figure.

The man who drew those cartoons receives no police protection.
However, I do know what you're talking about but it has nothing to do with my point:The people who were planning to attack him were not Danish (one had a temporary danish residency, the other two were on tourist visas), so you can hardly call that a rise in fundamentalism within Denmark.

Unfortunately, while government in the U.S. is prohibited from establishing a state religion, the fact that public schools are run by the government means that government can't avoid being involved in these arguments, since the battle between ID/creationism and evolutionism is not a science debate, but a religious one.

Which is a good argument for not allowing religion to be taught in schools at all. You teach evolution in the schools (as it's an established scientific theory, therefore it can safely be taught in science classes) and then you put a little box on the tax form so people can pay some of their taxes to the damned church/mosque/whatever. Then those people can send their kids off to church on a sunday morning to learn about the wonders of creationism.