Open Thread – 150 Questions « Incompetence Inc.

Open Thread – 150 Questions

26 November, 2006 at 11:19 am | In Incompetence Exposed | 20 Comments

http://junaman.wordpress.com/for-christians/

http://fundamentalist.wordpress.com

Junaman thread: 1 2 3 4 5

Marc thread: 1

http://cynicpad.wordpress.com/

The Possibility of a God 1 2

As requested in the other thread for convenience, please post all further discussion here.

20 Comments »

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

The name “Elijah” meant “God is Lord”.

Yes & he was considered to be God.

That some religions emphasize a nameless God doesn’t necessarily mean that [he] indeed is without one. Buddhism has no invocation because God is essentially nonexistent.

This isn’t strictly true.

I would disagree. Describing a specific beagle you see walking down the street as a “large, 100lb dog with a wide snout” would be hardly an accurate description of that dog. Another person would say you are being facetious or simply lying.

I’m not sure what you mean here. If you are saying that the descriptions of God , divine energy or a creator are not adequately described in other spiritual systems or religions, then I would counter that your wrong. The only solution here is to agree to disagree.

So it’s a rhetorical question. You assume that God is nameless and formless, whereby lacking a name. Judaism/Christianity is rather contrarian in this case.

Again IMO I think that Christians generally have this wrong, we will again have to agree to disagree.

You should read about demons in the NT. Jesus is a name that bears a priori authority, the same as Y-HW-H.

I have read about them, & have other experiences of them. Granted your point here is a valid one. But the name of Christ is not universal in this respect. He is also known by other names however, & the calling of his power is through the representation of Him through (His) name. Others also hold a priori authority & not necessarily of Christian theology.

Christians don’t “call up upon” Jesus when they pray. Saying “in Jesus’ name” is an invocation of his authority – call it a right, even.

This is semantics. Do not Christians pray “Jesus please help me”? They call upon him, they invoke His power, they call upon Him.

The point is that, regardless of their origin, this central tenet serves as a rebuttal of your claim that “Christian ideals cause pain, fear & suffering on many levels & scales.”

Yes you make a valid point, & there is much good in the world due to these ideals. But they are not exclusive to Christianity. It is no less viable or meaningful for an Atheist to embody these principles & for non-Christians or Atheists to create as much, if not more, love in the world.

I’m curious. What was the experience like?

It would take a book, I’m serious, I’ll try & give you a shortened account in another post if you are interested enough in my experiences of this. Needless to say allot of it could be put down to this, – I was brought up accepting what I was told, then I doubted & questioned, eventually loosing any kind of faith or belief in God. Now I have my own understandings of spiritual matters.

So it’s pretty clear that you’re a Buddhist. You should read about the Zen Buddhists in Japan during WWII.

No I am not a buddhist, nor would I categorically classify myself as one. Aspects of Buddhism are of interest, but so are aspects of Christianity & countless other systems of belief & spiritual idea(s). I would not classify myself as any one particular thing in regards to these matters. I am not sure of the part to which Zen played in the theater of WWII, I would have to look into it. But it does seem even with this little known fact, that there is little against the generally peaceful & compassionate way of Buddhism.

Comment by Marc C — 28 November, 2006 #
Hi Marc, comments interspersed below.

A: The name “Elijah” meant “God is Lord”.

M: Yes & he was considered to be God.

Maybe, but not according to the Jews.

A: That some religions emphasize a nameless God doesn’t necessarily mean that [he] indeed is without one. Buddhism has no invocation because God is essentially nonexistent.

M: This isn’t strictly true.

Okay, but qualify this opinion.

A: I would disagree. Describing a specific beagle you see walking down the street as a “large, 100lb dog with a wide snout” would be hardly an accurate description of that dog. Another person would say you are being facetious or simply lying.

M: I’m not sure what you mean here. If you are saying that the descriptions of God , divine energy or a creator are not adequately described in other spiritual systems or religions, then I would counter that your wrong. The only solution here is to agree to disagree.

In order to “agree to disagree”, the other side has to do this as well. Otherwise you’re arguing with yourself, and have already come to a compromise.

Some descriptions are totally wrong, such as the assumption that God incarnate comes in the form of a cow. That’s what I meant by writing the example.

Others fail to adequately describe the entire character of God, or describe God coherently.

A: So it’s a rhetorical question. You assume that God is nameless and formless, whereby lacking a name. Judaism/Christianity is rather contrarian in this case.

M: Again IMO I think that Christians generally have this wrong, we will again have to agree to disagree.

Again, qualify this opinion.

A: You should read about demons in the NT. Jesus is a name that bears a priori authority, the same as Y-HW-H.

M: I have read about them, & have other experiences of them. Granted your point here is a valid one. But the name of Christ is not universal in this respect. He is also known by other names however, & the calling of his power is through the representation of Him through (His) name. Others also hold a priori authority & not necessarily of Christian theology.

I’ll have to make a revision in what I said earlier. Only the name Y-HW-H bears a priori authority, as God is the only a priori Truth. However, after the coming of the Son in human form, the name “Jesus Christ” existed/currently exists as only one name in any particular language. The NT asserts this name is above all other names.

Others do have authority, but not to the current extent to which the name and relationship w/ Jesus does.

A: Christians don’t “call up upon” Jesus when they pray. Saying “in Jesus’ name” is an invocation of his authority – call it a right, even.

M: This is semantics. Do not Christians pray “Jesus please help me”? They call upon him, they invoke His power, they call upon Him.

No, this isn’t semantics. Christians don’t “call upon him” as Jews would have during the pre-crucifixion years. Through his authority, they can call upon God the Father.

I’d encourage you to read the Lord’s Prayer again.

A: The point is that, regardless of their origin, this central tenet serves as a rebuttal of your claim that “Christian ideals cause pain, fear & suffering on many levels & scales.”

M: Yes you make a valid point, & there is much good in the world due to these ideals. But they are not exclusive to Christianity. It is no less viable or meaningful for an Atheist to embody these principles & for non-Christians or Atheists to create as much, if not more, love in the world.

I’d disagree. Jesus asserted that these principles existed at the outset of Judaism, which arrived only second to the earliest known Vedic records. The Vedas also assert an entirely different set of mores.

A: I’m curious. What was the experience like?

M: It would take a book, I’m serious, I’ll try & give you a shortened account in another post if you are interested enough in my experiences of this. Needless to say allot of it could be put down to this, – I was brought up accepting what I was told, then I doubted & questioned, eventually loosing any kind of faith or belief in God. Now I have my own understandings of spiritual matters.

When did the doubting and questioning occur? And did you happen to reproach the material with an “innocent until proven guilty” approach?

What are your understandings? Perhaps they might not be in conflict with the Bible.

A: So it’s pretty clear that you’re a Buddhist. You should read about the Zen Buddhists in Japan during WWII.

M: No I am not a buddhist, nor would I categorically classify myself as one. Aspects of Buddhism are of interest, but so are aspects of Christianity & countless other systems of belief & spiritual idea(s). I would not classify myself as any one particular thing in regards to these matters. I am not sure of the part to which Zen played in the theater of WWII, I would have to look into it. But it does seem even with this little known fact, that there is little against the generally peaceful & compassionate way of Buddhism.

Sorry for that mistake, then. That you still have respect for religions is admirable; I brought up the example because not every religion is free of bloodshed.

Comment by albert — 28 November, 2006 #
Hey J, this is a crosspost from pt 5:

J: I didn’t disable pings so I don’t know why that didn’t come through…

I think it might be because it was already pinged. In any case…

J cont’d: I mean really it could apply to anything:
“It doesn’t matter whether or not we believe in invisible pixies, they just do.”
Or
“It doesn’t matter whether or not I believe there’s an invisible machine gun wielding maniac in my room, he just does”
Or most frighteningly:
“It doesn’t matter whether or not we believe in a magical omni[insert word] being who demands you sacrifice all your money and your whole family to him, he just does”
A: Not quite – the rhetoric is a far cry from a rationalist proof, which I’ve demonstrated.

J: How so? The rhetoric is exactly the same as what you used to describe this “god”, so why can’t god be a pixie, or a flying spaghetti monster?

You allude to God as a metaphor for wishful thinking and myth. The rhetoric I use is specifically logical rationalism.

I mean the same rhetoric applies to everything that does exist, like this chair would exist regardless of my belief in it. So how is the unnatural any different? Specifically how is god, any different from any other being I described?

Again, a “chair” is a far cry from an absolute objectivity, which by definition is outside the plane of our existence. Flying spaghetti monsters and pixies, sadly, fail this test as well.

A: Let’s assume one of the properties of God is absolute objectivity. By this property, it doesn’t matter whether or not we believe he exists, he just does.
J: Referring back to your original statement, it really begs the question “why Christianity?” and not agnosticism, for example…

The rationalist proof wasn’t meant specifically to support the Judeo-Christian God, but it can apply nonetheless.

A: But the main idea is that you say you subscribe to “objectivity” when the real issue at hand is “Truth” (that which is absolutely true/inerrant, which in turn colors beliefs of origin, afterlife, the metaphysical, etc.).
J: We both know that our world is far from inerrant… And subscribing to objectivity often has better consequences than being an idealist.

I’m not understanding what you mean by “inerrant”. When I used the term, it was in the context of a absolute metaphysical reality – an unchanging Truth.
Scientific objectivity can be a great tool for understanding the world, but it still has serious shortcomings – especially in the realm of moral imperatives. To say that it “often has better consequences than being an idealist” is to ignore post-Nietzschean social and geopolitical history.

A: The example of love from a parent to a child is often comes in the form of positive manipulation (from the parent’s perspective). The parent who goes to the extreme to sacrifice his/her life for the child demonstrates the extent of her love… similarly, I think the extent to which you genuinely love people is also demonstrated by this extreme. Jesus overwhelmingly meets this criteria.
J: Sure, Jesus may be full of love, and have great teachings, but how does this make him god?

Okay, so you passively admit that manipulation isn’t wrong by default.
Jesus being God is the subject of many books, but basically:
1. virgin birth
2. his own admittance
3. miracles
4. resurrection
5. fulfillment of prophesies
6. eyewitness accounts (transfiguration, post-resurrection, miracles, et. al)
7. failure of lunatic and liar arguments
There might be a couple others I’m forgetting.

A: It depends on what your definition of “flawed” is. If you see “flaw” as being, say, “written in an inebriated state”, then no, it’s has no flaw. If, on the other hand, your assertion deals with minor grammatical/typographical issues in the copies, then I can agree with you. But the major themes, ideas, etc. are not lost whatsoever.
J: How about flawed as in direct contradictions to other verses?
How about “god” advocating things, which today are considered absurd? If god is perfect then isn’t the time frame irrelevant?

Is that the only rubric you’re using?
“Direct contradictions” are often the case of misapplied hermeneutical approach (i.e., not paying attention to context, literary device, lacking reference from whole to part or part to whole, ascribing human characteristics to God, et. al – part and parcel to using the hermeneutical circle).
Your second reference is just one example of that. I’m assuming you’re talking about the slaughter of the Canaanites during the Israelite wandering years in the desert.
1. first off, pre-emptive war was justified because God had given them the land, which had previously belonged to a squatting Abraham.
2. the Canaanites were also by and large a wicked, unrepenting people (meaning they were unlikely to submit to the authority or justice of God on earth).
3. the Canaanites were not utterly defenseless, meaning that they were legitimately defeated.
4. God himself sought to create a holy society that would be a beacon to attract outsiders to his presence.
5. this followed that the society would initially have to be pure – in the Aryan sense.
6. as a result, God said to take nothing captive, including livestock in some cases.
7. this also meant that God wanted them to clear the land.
8. land was claimed by power struggles.
9. in one instance that I can remember, God sent a spirit to destroy an invading group’s army
10. some members of the army were left who went back and told their leaders, who stopped their pre-emptive attack.
There’s more:
1. To create a holy society, God also killed his own people
2. the people had complained twice about the different kinds of food they got for free

A: Addressing your second and third questions: “which parts should you believe in or not? Or is everything you believe perfect, and everything you don’t caused by human error?” Well, to be concise, Christianity is at its core not a matter of “believing the Bible”; it is a belief in Jesus as a problem to the dilemma of demonstrably recurring sin. Incarnated, it is a lifestyle, a process – not a matter of dogma or seat of judgement. The righteousness is ascribed, not achieved. [Rom 5:17, 10:4, et. al]
J: Alright, so you’re saying that Christianity is not about believing in the bible, and then directing me to a bible quote to back that statement up… Come on…
Your only source about not believing in the bible comes from the bible itself…
Same thing with Jesus. If it’s not about believing in the bible, all your references to Jesus are gone…

The Bible didn’t exist when Jesus was around.

A: Apply that test to Shakespeare and see if you get the same result. Did he really exist? How many of the plays did he really write? Why are there such marked difference between the manuscripts, etc.
J: Shakespeare’s work is usually classified as fiction, mainly due to just those questions. If I could find the bible in the same section of my local library I would have no problem with anything in it…
People don’t “worship” Shakespeare, or follow his works… What he writes is irrelevant really…

No, it is very relevant. The comparison is made because of the integrity of the manuscripts. Shakespearean manuscripts were known to have major disparities that changed both the meaning of his monologues as well as the words (typography) themselves.
NT manuscripts typographical mistakes are minimal, and do not change the overall meaning.

A: Regarding your last comment, I think Jesus was probably the furthest from conformity as could be possible.
J: Jesus perhaps, but his followers, especially those a bit later on are another matter…

Jesus was his own example of how religion should be practiced. All else is subject to the rigors of heresy.
But I agree with your last point. The Crusades were an especially dark age in Christianity that other Christians must learn from (especially American preachers like Ted Haggard and James Dobson).

Comment by albert — 28 November, 2006 #
It’s possible you might’ve set some kind of comment record, J, because this thing ain’t working anymore. My last comment didn’t even show up on your sidebar. You should definitely get this checked out.

Comment by albert — 28 November, 2006 #
Sorry, you last comment was placed in moderation for whatever reason… I have approved it. The one before that, that didn’t show up was caught by the spam filter. Once again, I don’t know why…

Comment by junaman — 28 November, 2006 #
All the answers to your questions are very simple! YOU ARE NOT OF GOD. You are of your Father SATAN. Nothing will change your mind. Now shut up, go back to sleep and await hell. Got that dumb hethen who cant go figure? *typing very s.l.o.w.l.y* for your small brain. GOD doesn’t want YOU either and he will simply spew garbage like you out of his mouth. (NOW. What do I win?)

Steven.

Comment by Steven — 21 January, 2007 #
I can not find a site like this.
This site specializes in free virtual sex games.
These sex games are xxx, x-rated for adults only. For real, I’m 100% serious.
I know most of the web has become nothing but a giant bait-and-switch game,
but I give you my word this site really contains a game where you can have
interactive virtual sex as advertised! These fully interactive sex games work like
todays most popular CD-ROM games These are NOT just sliding puzzles or
Tetris games that reveal a static picture as you play Hear the girls moan and
scream when YOU bring them to climax! Pulsing techno soundtrack while you play our sex
games Features easy one-handed virtual sex There are no applications to download or
plug-ins required. You may begin playing the virtual sex games instantly Can where you
find

Comment by petrykeri — 4 February, 2007 #
Hi all!

Bye

Comment by Test — 30 March, 2007 #
Hi. I find forum about work and travel. Where can I to see it?
Best Regards, Michael.

Comment by MichaelDZH — 1 April, 2007 #
What about the possibility of pulling out of Iraq, letting Iran invade and lose resources fighting their own kind,
and then come in and mop up the dregs?

Comment by nemoforone — 3 April, 2007 #
Peace people
We love you

Comment by HelloWorld — 7 April, 2007 #
I just want you to know that I think you did a terrific job on this websight.

Comment by online slot games online casino roulette — 8 June, 2007 #
Hi all!

Very interesting information! Thanks!

G’night

Comment by hiutopor — 17 September, 2007 #
Your welcome everyone,
Can you help me to find
information,that is most popular about anything,but only legal and not adult.
With best regards.

Comment by floydculpin — 9 January, 2008 #
Hi,

At the risk of a flaming, and rightly so, as this is my first post and off topic! But I really need some advice.

My wife and I are planning on emigrating to Dubai, UAE as a new job opportunity awaits me there.
It’s obviously a big step and I’m exctited about moving but I’ve heard both good and bad things about the place.

Before I move my family, quit my job etc. I’d be grateful if anyone here has ever been there/or has any experience. Also what are living costs and the cost of property in dubai?
I’d really appreciate any feedback.

Regards

Jake

Comment by JakePorter — 6 March, 2008 #
Приветствую всех!
У меня такой вопрос,кто что интересное подскажет буду признателен.
Мы с друзьями собираемся поехать в круиз по просторам России и ближнего зарубежья месяца на два на своих машинах,но не как не можем согласовать маршрут,если у кого уже был опыт такого путешествия,может,что посоветуете.Девчонок с собой не берем,думаем,что во все городах России с этим не будет проблем,если у кого будут рекомендации и в вопросе отдыха с девушками тоже буду признателен.

С уважением Сеньчик

Comment by Metrujectiktus — 28 March, 2008 #
Приветствую всех!
У меня такой вопрос,кто что интересное подскажет буду признателен.
Мы с друзьями собираемся поехать в круиз по просторам России и ближнего зарубежья месяца на два на своих машинах,но не как не можем согласовать маршрут,если у кого уже был опыт такого путешествия,может,что посоветуете.Девчонок с собой не берем,думаем,что во все городах России с этим не будет проблем,если у кого будут рекомендации и в вопросе отдыха с девушками тоже буду признателен.

С уважением Сеньчик

Comment by Benchiktovchik — 5 June, 2008 #
down fit to pass constantly viagra every now scintilla while

Comment by Henneigue — 11 September, 2008 #
locality forever viagra every now fleetingly

Comment by Henneigue — 11 September, 2008 #
I have been a guest of this home page! ZiPiTiDuYa… ZiPiDiHey…

Comment by tip — 21 May, 2009 #