Poll Best religion? (146 votes)
What's the best religion?
What's the best religion?
@linked_: To memory, I gave you an exegesis of the text that you didn't bother to, at the very least, argue a possible in-continuity with the bible.
You'd have to show me where, because I don't recall this at all.
So just codes of conduct (concession of conduct, like the dietary laws including meat) and not a formal acceptance?
The fact Yahweh doesn't abolish like he abolishes plenty of other things shows he isn't against it.
Do you know the purported historical context of the quote?
The context is crystal clear. That being the norm of the time doesn't change the fact this is what Yahweh supports If he didn't support this, he wouldn't begrudgingly accept it because that's the norm or people wouldn't like women in such positions for X reason. Instead, he'd throw a hissy fit like he does any other time people do or believe shit he doesn't like.
What? Just going by the common; the original Hebrew doesn't use the word Rape
You'd have to provide evidence.
Though, if you're claiming mistranslation, the supposed "word of god" should have zero errors.
So being consistent, the exegesis would have to be; a man having intercourse with a virgin, and as a mercy, since she won't be taken by any other men, has to marry her and pay her father his Due (See Exodus 22:16 as well)
Again, would need proof the translation is faulty, which already raises its own problem for Christians. It being inconsistent is nothing new with the Bible.
In their purpose. Whether that someone, or something, is intelligibly grasped wouldn't matter. The Purpose in which they were made, would be independent from Human subjects, and persist. thus, being objective.
You're not even talking about the definition of purpose anymore. Saying "purpose" is some independent abstract truth of reality is no more logical than claiming a cardboard box is non-physical, even though it must be physical, per the definition of the word. If you say it isn't, then you aren't talking about a cardboard box anymore.
I skipped to this last part because this is the premise of your argument, which doesn't work.
And for the latter creator point?--it depends, do you think the creator, can well, create something external to his essence (but not out of his influence)?
If an omnipotent creator existed? Yeah, don't see why not.
Furthermore, do you think those creations have to follow said creator's mode of design?
Would be up to the creator most likely.
None of this has any bearing on the illogical concept of objective meaning or morality though.
- Seventh Moon
@nicetryson said:
You'd have to show me where, because I don't recall this at all.
#118. Though at the time however, i didn't explain the immediate application (See Genesis 50:20, really the whole story of Joseph)
The fact Yahweh doesn't abolish like he abolishes plenty of other things shows he isn't against it.
I'm not sure you understand the above point, but let me just dive in further to your point; What type of slavery do you think he's endorsing?
The context is crystal clear.
Tell me its context and application (liturgical vs universal for example)
That being the norm of the time doesn't change the fact this is what Yahweh supports If he didn't support this, he wouldn't begrudgingly accept it because that's the norm or people wouldn't like women in such positions for X reason.
Wasn't even what i was going to say.
Instead, he'd throw a hissy fit like he does any other time people do or believe shit he doesn't like.
Unrelated Question really, but were you always--and i'm assuming here, Atheist?
You'd have to provide evidence.
The Parallel Command/Same Command;
Though, if you're claiming mistranslation, the supposed "word of god" should have zero errors.
How is a mistranslation identical to the original text and meaning to the point it counts as an error for the original text?
🤨
Again, would need proof the translation is faulty, which already raises its own problem for Christians.
Assuming the argument even follows, it would only be relevant for people who affirm Sola-Scriptua and go against oral tradition.
You're not even talking about the definition of purpose anymore. Saying "purpose" is some independent abstract truth of reality
Is it that crazy of an idea that a proposed omnipotent can assign purpose independent from Human understanding (Known) and interpretation (Subjectivity)?
is no more logical than claiming a cardboard box is non-physical, even though it must be physical, per the definition of the word. If you say it isn't, then you aren't talking about a cardboard box anymore.
Could you prove your rebuttals' premise?
I skipped to this last part because this is the premise of your argument, which doesn't work.
Okay, Where's the Defeater?
Would be up to the creator most likely.
But do you think that design, or rather Telos would exist even if it's not currently being fulfilled?
@linked_: #118. Though at the time however, i didn't explain the immediate application (See Genesis 50:20, really the whole story of Joseph)
Genesis 50:20 brings nothing relevant to the conversation about Yahweh controlling everyone. What is the point you're trying to make with it?
I'm not sure you understand the above point, but let me just dive in further to your point; What type of slavery do you think he's endorsing?
Tell me its context and application (liturgical vs universal for example)
You keep doing this thing where you keep asking questions or make arequest instead of just stating your position or defense clearly.
If you have a defense for anything I say, bring it to the table. This is just beating around the bush. I'd prefer to get to the point.
Unrelated Question really, but were you always--and i'm assuming here, Atheist?
Was raised in Christianity, but it never really affected my life, as my parents weren't zealots and I never really cared for the religion or agreed with it. I poked holes in it alone eventually when I cared enough to pay attention to it. It's a poorly written piece of fiction that stands as one of many testaments to how easily humans can be deluded/tricked, etc.
Never looked up atheists to debunk the Bible for me. Never needed to. In fact, I did the opposite. I looked up every Christian defense for any problem I had and the results were always pitiful.
Of course, being an agnostic/atheist doesn't mean you're smart. There's plenty of them who believe in nonsense or unproven shit, like spirituality, with many western atheists being leftists as well, which shows they're highly irrational, to the point I'd back most Christians over them if I had to tier everyone's rationality, and would prefer their company over western atheists the vast majority of the time.
-
Fair on the translation. Though, paying her father like she's property is still an issue here. That, and the fact a translation from the "word of god" is inaccurate, on top of the other verse you haven't given a defense for.
How is a mistranslation identical to the original text and meaning to the point it counts as an error for the original text?
If the Bible was the word of god and was meant to be relayed to humans, it would not have translation errors. Yahweh would intervene to make sure humans don't screw up the translations.
Assuming the argument even follows, it would only be relevant for people who affirm Sola-Scriptua and go against oral tradition.
"Oral tradition" translates to "people saying random shit." Why is this even considered?
Is it that crazy of an idea that a proposed omnipotent can assign purpose independent from Human understanding (Known) and interpretation (Subjectivity)?
Yes, in the same way it's an absurd notion that an omnipotent can make 2 + 2 = 5, or make a cardboard box that isn't physical. Such things are fundamentally illogical.
You can't say an omnipotent is beyond logic because logic grounds all coherence and meaning. The fact an omnipotent is the perfect being that can do anything requires logic, otherwise an ant could stomp an omnipotent because it's illogical.
As a result, an omnipotent can only do all possible/logical things, as illogical things are not things at all, meaning not being able to do an illogical thing is not a limitation.
What all logical things extends to is unknown, but we know what is blatantly illogical/impossible.
Could you prove your rebuttals' premise?
You're wanting me to prove... how a cardboard box must be a physical thing, per its definition...?
Or how "meaning" is inherently subjective? Per its definition?
Definition of objectivity:
(of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
What is meaningful to someone solely depends on their personal feelings and desires, to the point you can't even give a logical framework for how meaning would exist without these factors. You just say it can be independent of these things, but this is no different from me claiming there can be square circle.
- Seventh Moon
@nicetryson: Genesis 50:20 brings nothing relevant to the conversation about Yahweh controlling everyone. What is the point you're trying to make with it?
It's an add on verse that contextualizes the Pharaoh point further. Which, IIRC is rather than controlling everyone, is more or less, well, what Genesis 50:20 says, "What was meant for evil God intended for Good."
You keep doing this thing where you keep asking questions or make arequest instead of just stating your position or defense clearly.
I'm sorry, i'm just trying to get a hang of your positioning first. Since, for all i could know, you could just be talking about... indentured servitude, and likewise for the latter, a liturgical hierarchy. Although, i'd imagine the former's answer is obvious looking back, in which case i apologize for the series of questions.
If you have a defense for anything I say, bring it to the table. This is just beating around the bush. I'd prefer to get to the point.
As for this? i did state my rebuttal; it was a re-contextualization, in which it was a concession of conduct for an already existing system (like man now eating animals, and animals, eating other animals post-fall), that in of itself will be purportedly judged (Most of these Slave Master Relations coming from Oaths anyways).
Was raised in Christianity, but it never really affected my life, as my parents weren't zealots and I never really cared for the religion or agreed with it. I poked holes in it alone eventually when I cared enough to pay attention to it. It's a poorly written piece of fiction that stands as one of many testaments to how easily humans can be deluded/tricked, etc.
Never looked up atheists to debunk the Bible for me. Never needed to. In fact, I did the opposite. I looked up every Christian defense for any problem I had and the results were always pitiful.
Of course, being an agnostic/atheist doesn't mean you're smart. There's plenty of them who believe in nonsense or unproven shit, like spirituality, with many western atheists being leftists as well, which shows they're highly irrational, to the point I'd back most Christians over them if I had to tier everyone's rationality, and would prefer their company over western atheists the vast majority of the time.
I see, and really can relate to some of the stuff said, but thank you for sharing--and if you don't mind me asking, what denomination were you growing up?
Fair on the translation. Though, paying her father like she's property is still an issue here. That, and the fact a translation from the "word of god" is inaccurate, on top of the other verse you haven't given a defense for.
A mistranslation isn't in so much a defeater for the claim, as much as say... i don't know, some scaler on VSBW purposely mistranslating Plato to fit his wank. Yeah, it's a mistranslation, but Plato's Words, or here-say Words still exist, and he said them. They're certainly not the mistranslated one's, but nonetheless, you get the point.
Though i will say, it is a valid contention against Muslims who claim absolute perfection and preservation of the text to the point (IIRC) no corruption of the text can exist, but--uh, on the other point, please remind me of the ones I've missed, and to the former, property point? i'm not too sure.
It really depends on how the ancient Hebrews viewed Marriage, but i wouldn't exactly pin that on the Christian God for reasons above, (Especially so when the NT shatters the Hebrew's conception of Marriage.)
If the Bible was the word of god and was meant to be relayed to humans, it would not have translation errors. Yahweh would intervene to make sure humans don't screw up the translations.
That's what the purported purpose of the Church is for, (Especially since it predates, and decides the canon of scripture) hence, Matthew 16:18.
"Oral tradition" translates to "people saying random shit." Why is this even considered?
apostolic succession doesn't seem as vain as a game of childhood telephone (even more so, since some of these successors and patriarchs have writings anyone can check IIRC). Especially when people's live's or on the line for what they say, but i guess you could question their sanity, but yatta-yatta-yatta, it'd lead to some weird 1/3 chance-hood of "They're Purposefully Telling Misinformation" "They're Deceived/Deluded" or "They're Telling the Truth."
What all logical things extends to is unknown, but we know what is blatantly illogical/impossible.
(My quote broke in editing) I'm questioning it's illogicality.
Snip
I already "agreed" with this?
This isn't in so much as a definitive defeater, but more of a definition (Meaning vs to mean) problem that leads into two debates. so to stop any further confusion, let me quickly rephrase. "Bad" and "Good" can be defined in Purpose for said given faculty or being (Proper Use = Good, Improper use = Bad), which can exist independently from the human experience through means of an omnipotent, but can still be intelligibly grasped. This falls under the definition (standard) of objective morality, (Moreso, Moral Realism) whereas things are mind independent (Which is how i personally define Objective) from Humans.
Does that make sense?
@linked_: It's an add on verse that contextualizes the Pharaoh point further. Which, IIRC is rather than controlling everyone, is more or less, well, what Genesis 50:20 says, "What was meant for evil God intended for Good."
It explicitly states Yahweh controls people. All this passage is saying is that what humans intended for evil purposes, Yahweh used to result in a "good" outcome. This has no bearing on the passage of him controlling people.
in which it was a concession of conduct for an already existing system (like man now eating animals, and animals, eating other animals post-fall), that in of itself will be purportedly judged (Most of these Slave Master Relations coming from Oaths anyways).
Again, Yahweh supports these systems enough not to do away with them.
what denomination were you growing up?
My parents, aka really just my mother, since my father was just a "Yeah I believe in Jesus but haven't ever read the Bible and have no set opinion" types, didn't really subscribe to one denomination entirely. Only thing I can say is that my mother was against prosperity preaching, as she thinks the religious suffer more for their beliefs as a test, doesn't believe Christmas is Biblical (it isn't), and believes no one gets raptured before the end times.
A mistranslation isn't in so much a defeater for the claim
I wasn't using it as a defeater for the claim. I was mentioning how that causes another problem in regards to the validity of the Bible as the word of god, that being errors of any kind.
It really depends on how the ancient Hebrews viewed Marriage, but i wouldn't exactly pin that on the Christian God for reasons above, (Especially so when the NT shatters the Hebrew's conception of Marriage.)
I mean, I don't see how this under any context would be justified, regardless on some of the possible differences of marriage.
That's what the purported purpose of the Church is for, (Especially since it predates, and decides the canon of scripture) hence, Matthew 16:18.
The church believes in the Bible and bases their beliefs around, with everything I've mentioned being in the books they deem canon.
apostolic succession doesn't seem as vain as a game of childhood telephone (even more so, since some of these successors and patriarchs have writings anyone can check IIRC). Especially when people's live's or on the line for what they say, but i guess you could question their sanity, but yatta-yatta-yatta, it'd lead to some weird 1/3 chance-hood of "They're Purposefully Telling Misinformation" "They're Deceived/Deluded" or "They're Telling the Truth."
Humans lie, lie to themselves, or simply misinterpret shit, regardless of threat of death. Hell, if Jesus existed and thought he was the messiah and was crucified, he's a prime example of this, since he died for either a lie or a delusion, since we know he wasn't the messiah, just a cult leader.
I already "agreed" with this?
I don't know what you're replying to here since you keep putting "snip" instead of the quote.
"Bad" and "Good" can be defined in Purpose for said given faculty or being (Proper Use = Good, Improper use = Bad)
Why though? This is an arbitrary standard you made for "good" and "bad" like all the other standards.
Hell, even proper use is wonky. If someone uses something the creator didn't intend to be used in such a manner, but this different usage works well for that person's own goals, is that even improper then? Because the way they used X thing was successful in regards to getting what they wanted. This is another subjective thing.
- Seventh Moon
Okay, sure. Let's assume for a moment that Genesis 50 is irrelevant, and the Christian God controls people, how do you reconcile that one, he desires for all to be saved, so there's no before time decision hard damming people, and two, the methodology of hardening starts from the subjects own will (Pharaoh, and even shown in general in Romans 1:24), and is only ever cemented when the Christian God leaves them to their own desire?
Again, Yahweh supports these systems enough not to do away with them.
As i said before, as a concession of conduct. These institutions and oaths come from man's freewill, (yet even still, are still limited and abolished in the sabbatical year IIRC.) and are later revealed to be "evil" (Matthew 5:33-37)
My parents, aka really just my mother, since my father was just a "Yeah I believe in Jesus but haven't ever read the Bible and have no set opinion" types, didn't really subscribe to one denomination entirely. Only thing I can say is that my mother was against prosperity preaching, as she thinks the religious suffer more for their beliefs as a test, doesn't believe Christmas is Biblical (it isn't), and believes no one gets raptured before the end times.
I see, thank you for answering.
I wasn't using it as a defeater for the claim. I was mentioning how that causes another problem in regards to the validity of the Bible as the word of god, that being errors of any kind.
The Original meaning of the text is still there, and the fact we can point to the "Right" one (as in appearing consistently in the Manuscripts) proves its well, preservation. So, where's the problem?
I mean, I don't see how this under any context would be justified, regardless on some of the possible differences of marriage.
I agree, there's no real justification when we affirm the soon to be wed-woman as a sort of bargaining chip, but it's not always like that, and still, not telling of the ideal for the christian God.
The church believes in the Bible and bases their beliefs around, with everything I've mentioned being in the books they deem canon.
The Church believes in the bible, and base their beliefs around it's text that they hold true from oral tradition. It's always going to be prior and ontologically "above" to the written word because it's united to the eternal word.
Humans lie, lie to themselves, or simply misinterpret shit, regardless of threat of death.
The Threat of death is a truth serum of sorts, no?
Hell, if Jesus existed and thought he was the messiah and was crucified, he's a prime example of this, since he died for either a lie or a delusion, since we know he wasn't the messiah, just a cult leader.
How do you know the underlined?
I don't know what you're replying to here since you keep putting "snip" instead of the quote.
A steel-man or concession of the argument form your proposed definition.
Why though? This is an arbitrary standard you made for "good" and "bad" like all the other standards.
It's arbitrary without a specific deity to plug in, sure.
Hell, even proper use is wonky. If someone uses something the creator didn't intend to be used in such a manner, but this different usage works well for that person's own goals, is that even improper then?
Because the way they used X thing was successful in regards to getting what they wanted. This is another subjective thing.
Personal Utility isn't going to define what's good or bad here in the face of a concrete (known/given command) purpose for a faculty. (especially with such a vague example, which you ought to go into more).
Though to answer ahead, if you want to discern what things can be said to be evil or not in the christian paradigm, you have to look at it relationally. but concerning the example (and also acting as its own example in a way), is the person in it, moving for someone? or against them, and how? is it a parent exercising authority and telling a child not to touch the stove? be clear, and thank you.
Authenticity
If the resurrection of Jesus is true, then the essential teachings of Christianity are true. I think there is good evidence to believe in the resurrection:
1) Jesus performed miracles - this is not just claimed by Christian sources but by the Roman-Jewish historian Josephus, and enemies of Christianity - Celsus, Toledot Yeshu, and the Babylonian Talmud.
2) The early Christian creed in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 is no later than 3-5 years after the resurrection, according to scholars, with historian James Gunn placing it no later than 18 months after the resurrection. This creed mentions the resurrection of Jesus and eye witnesses such as Peter, James, and the apostles. This is too early for myth to have set in.
3) The resurrection accounts contain embarrassing details that a made up story would not have had - such as Jesus dying as a criminal on the cross, and the first eye witnesses being women. Women were not considered reliable witnesses in the day, and if you were trying to fake a story, this would not be a detail you would create. The accounts also contain embarrassing details for the disciples such as denying Jesus and running away when the soldiers came for him. These kinds of details add credibility to the account.
4) Non-Christian sources restate and affirm many of the resurrection account details - Jesus was crucified by Pontius Pilate, he was buried in a tomb, the tomb was found empty a few days later, the disciples claimed to have seen him resurrected, and their lives were dramatically changed from the event.
5) The resurrection is the best explanation for the dramatic transformation of the disciples, James, and Paul. The Jews were not looking for a resurrected Messiah, but a military conqueror. In the Jewish mindset, if you were dead, you weren't coming back to this world. Fabricating such a story would not have made sense to the standard Jewish mindset of the day.
@rawsos: Buddha love you too
@reaperace: reject humanity turn into monkey 🙈 🐵 🐒
@mrmonster: so being an atheist is an best option
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment