Debate concerning Heaven (Split from Laying out my Cards: Atheist in Wolf's Clothing)

[Goliath]

Loki, you don't get it. You're just another hell-bound sinner to them, no different from the rest of the hell-bound sinners.

You're just going to be another log on the infinite fireplace of hell, burning to the enjoyment of the xians in heaven (or so they'd have you believe).

[Loki]

Loki, you don't get it. You're just another hell-bound sinner to them, no different from the rest of the hell-bound sinners.

You're just going to be another log on the infinite fireplace of hell, burning to the enjoyment of the xians in heaven (or so they'd have you believe).

Nice straw man. Come back when you have something constructive to add to the discussion.

[Glass*Soul]

Loki, you don't get it. You're just another hell-bound sinner to them, no different from the rest of the hell-bound sinners.

You're just going to be another log on the infinite fireplace of hell, burning to the enjoyment of the xians in heaven (or so they'd have you believe).


Some do believe that and some don't.

It bothers me more that something of that way of thinking is embedded pretty deeply in my own psyche. I'm not sure I can eradicate it, so I have to live with it. Personally it helps more to expose myself to Christians who believe otherwise than it does to completely walk away, but I'm not in a position to recommend that approach to anyone else.

[seebs]

I have a very hard time imagining Loki ending up in Hell.

Some will die in hot pursuit
in fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
while sifting through my ashes
And some will fall in love with life
and drink it from a fountain
that is pourin' like an avalanche
comin' down the mountain.

[Goliath]

Nice straw man.

It's nothing of the kind. Have you even glanced at the bible?


Come back when you have something constructive to add to the discussion.

All of my additions to this particular discussion have been constructive.

[Goliath]

I have a very hard time imagining Loki ending up in Hell.


Well...is Loki a xian?

[CaDan]

Paging Karl Rahner! Paging Karl Rahner!

:D

[seebs]

Well...is Loki a xian?

How the hell should I know?

I have seen no convincing arguments that "non-Christians" as a group are in danger of Hell. I do not believe that the common arguments to this effect are persuasive.

[Goliath]

I have seen no convincing arguments that "non-Christians" as a group are in danger of Hell.

Try reading the bible, specifically the hate-filled blather about "only through following me will you get to heaven", or something like that...it's been years since I've looked at the passage in question.

[Loki]

And yet, how does one define "following Christ?"

[Goliath]

And yet, how does one define "following Christ?"

Well, as following Christ's commands...

Why do you ask a question to which you seem to know the answer?

[ksen]

Try reading the bible, specifically the hate-filled blather about "only through following me will you get to heaven", or something like that...it's been years since I've looked at the passage in question.

I'd like to see the specific verse that says "following Christ" gets you to Heaven.

[seebs]

Try reading the bible, specifically the hate-filled blather about "only through following me will you get to heaven", or something like that...it's been years since I've looked at the passage in question.

And, by strange coincidence, you have it subtly wrong.

The Gospel According to St. John, Chapter 14, Verse 6
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Does this say that people "come to the Father" only by Jesus? Why, yes it does.

Does it say that only Christians "come to the Father"? No.

Let me contrast this:

Physics According to Isaac Newton, Chapter 14, Verse 6
And gravity is the force which draweth things together, even with force proportional to the product of their masses, and no man falleth to the Earth, but by gravity.

Does this passage say "only people who hold correct beliefs about gravity will come back down if they jump"? I don't think it does.

[Goliath]

Physics According to Isaac Newton, Chapter 14, Verse 6
And gravity is the force which draweth things together, even with force proportional to the product of their masses, and no man falleth to the Earth, but by gravity.

Does this passage say "only people who hold correct beliefs about gravity will come back down if they jump"? I don't think it does.


No, it doesn't. Now you only have to show that the biblical author's intent was more like yours than what the text obviously says. Good luck!

[seebs]

No, it doesn't. Now you only have to show that the biblical author's intent was more like yours than what the text obviously says. Good luck!

What do you mean, what it obviously says? It says "by me". It does not say "by opinions about me".

That's it. We're done.

If you have some reason for which we should interpret it otherwise, feel free to present it.

[Goliath]

It says "by me". It does not say "by opinions about me".


Well, if you don't believe that Jesus was the son of a god, then you're not with him. And if you're not with him, then what are you, kids? That's right! You're against him! (What a wonderful lesson in good ol' fashioned xian morals!).



That's it. We're done.



For once, we agree. You've become weak, seebs. Your arguments have become ridiculously easy to defeat. What happened to you?

[flesh99]

No, it doesn't. Now you only have to show that the biblical author's intent was more like yours than what the text obviously says. Good luck!
The text obviously says nothing. It may be obvious to one person and not to another. It is apparently obvious to you but not to seebs. Obviousness is not objective but rather subjective. Demanding someone prove a subjective is a little out there. Seebs has shown there are different readings of the verse in question. I happen to agree with your reading but that is beside the point for the purpose of the point I am making. I read this verse differently than seebs but his reading may be more valid than mine. I don't think there is a burden of proof on anyone to show the author's intent as it cannot be shown. There is no way to prove the intent of the author. All we can do is follow our own readings whatever they may be. Your reading proves, to you, malevolence and my reading proves benevolence. We see things from different perspectives. I don't think there is a burden of proof on you to show malevolence even though we see the same scripture as proving different things. Why claim that there is a burden of proof on seebs when it is an obviously subjective point?

[seebs]

Well, if you don't believe that Jesus was the son of a god, then you're not with him.

I don't recall it ever saying that.

I think you're getting fragments of things people say mixed up with the actual text.

For once, we agree. You've become weak, seebs. Your arguments have become ridiculously easy to defeat. What happened to you?

So far as I can tell, what's changed is that you're getting less careful about reading things to see what they actually say, and faster to just assume that what you think they say is right. You're not noticing the ambiguities or giving much attention to them.

[Goliath]

The text obviously says nothing. It may be obvious to one person and not to another.

Fine, then you're obviously saying that yesterday, you and Soupy Sales went to Quizno's to snort coke off a hooker's ass.

I agree with Rush Limbaugh on very little, but the one thing that we do agree on is that words mean things.


the author's intent...cannot be shown. There is no way to prove the intent of the author.


Unproven assertion.

[Goliath]

I don't recall it ever saying that.

Not that particular verse, no. However, IIRC, there's another verse in the bible saying something isomorphic to that.



So far as I can tell, what's changed is that you're getting less careful about reading things to see what they actually say, and faster to just assume that what you think they say is right.



Such as...?

You're not noticing the ambiguities or giving much attention to them.

If you're talking about this discussion, then there are no ambiguities to notice. The text says what it says.

[flesh99]

Fine, then you're obviously saying that yesterday, you and Soupy Sales went to Quizno's to snort coke off a hooker's ass.
Your constant resort to graphical insults really doesn't do your case any good. It makes me take you way less seriously and I would wager it does the same for others.

I agree with Rush Limbaugh on very little, but the one thing that we do agree on is that words mean things.
And you have not shown that what you assert is true. You claim that it is without offering a shred of evidence to back up your claims and then demand evidence of others. It is not a good way to ingraite people to you or engage them in any logical argumentation.

Unproven assertion.
Demanding proof for a negative? You cannot prove a negative. The burden of proof is on the one who makes the positive claim as negatives cannot be proved. My proof is right here in this thread. Seebs and I read the scripture differently and disagree on the author's intent. How do you propose to prove the intent of an author who has been dead for centuries?

[Goliath]

Your constant resort to graphical insults really doesn't do your case any good.

It didn't do my case any harm, either. I merely find it to be an amusing way to deflect erroneous and irrelevant statements.

And you have not shown that what you assert is true.

What assertions have I made in this thread?


You cannot prove a negative.


Bullshit!

Theorem: There is no rational number x such that x^2=2.

Proof: Suppose that there exists such an x, say x=a/b for some integers a and b with b nonzero. Without loss of generality, we will also assume that a and b are relatively prime. Then bx=a and 2b^2=a^2 (where "a^2" means the square of a, and similarly for "b^2"). We then see that a^2 is even, whence a must be even (for if a were to be odd, say a=2t+1 for some integer t, then a^2=4t^2+4t+1=2(2t^2+2t)+1 is odd, a contradiction).

So, since a is even, we may write a=2k for some integer k. Therefore 2b^2=(2k)^2=4k^2, implying that b^2=2k^2. Thus b^2 is even. By a similar argument used above, it follows that b is even.

But then a and b are both even, implying that 2 divides both a and b. However, a and b are relatively prime. This is a contradiction.

Therefore, no such x can exist. Q.E.D.



How do you propose to prove the intent of an author who has been dead for centuries?

Not my problem.

Next!

[seebs]

Fine, then you're obviously saying that yesterday, you and Soupy Sales went to Quizno's to snort coke off a hooker's ass.

I agree with Rush Limbaugh on very little, but the one thing that we do agree on is that words mean things.

Yes. However, often, words are ambiguous.

[Goliath]

Yes. However, often, words are ambiguous.

Not if they're defined or refer to defined things.

Come on, man! Can't you do any better? Destroying your arguments nowadays is child's play! What happened to the old seebs who was a challenge in battle?

[CaDan]

Defined with . . . wait for it . . .

more words

[Goliath]

Defined with . . . wait for it . . .

more words

Yes, hence the need for undefined terms.

Sheesh, what is it with you people? Are there any worthy opponents around here?

[CaDan]

Yes, hence the need for undefined terms.

Turtles all the way down.

Sheesh, what is it with you people? Are there any worthy opponents around here?

What's the game?

[ksen]

No, it doesn't. Now you only have to show that the biblical author's intent was more like yours than what the text obviously says. Good luck!

I gotta say that I'm on your side on this one Goliath.

The text says what it says. IMO the more liberal Christians often try to soften what the text says.

Why? I don't know.

[ksen]

Defined with . . . wait for it . . .

more words

It's amazing that we can communicate at all.

[CaDan]

It's amazing that we can communicate at all.

Paging Noam Chomsky!

[seebs]

Not if they're defined or refer to defined things.

Even then, often they are ambiguous, as they may have multiple definitions.

Whole sentences can be very hard to understand correctly, especially when they are written in metaphorical or poetic language. Many people argue about the meanings of things Jesus said, because they are often not completely clear.

What do you think "no man cometh to the Father, but through me" means? Do you think it means that people have to drive through Jesus, like the tunnel through that huge redwood out in California? Perhaps it's like "if you want to get to him, you're gonna have to got through me", and Jesus is really sort of a divine defense player, with the Father being the quarterback. Perhaps it is idiomatic usage, and it really refers to the things he's teaching in some way.

What I don't see is a good way to turn it into a claim about people's beliefs about Jesus, because it doesn't say that.

Come on, man! Can't you do any better? Destroying your arguments nowadays is child's play! What happened to the old seebs who was a challenge in battle?

I got better at it, which suggests to me that the change here is in your perceptions. I would like to see you diagram the sentence under discussion and show how you're parsing it, because what you say doesn't even seem plausible to me.

You should know this. If you have a clash of "obvious" readings, it's time to show your work in detail.

[Goliath]

Turtles all the way down.

*raises eyebrow* No, undefined terms are needed to avoid infinite regress. The dictionary is finite, after all.


What's the game?

Why do you ask questions to which you seem to know the answer?

[Goliath]

Even then, often they are ambiguous, as they may have multiple definitions.

One word: context.


I got better at it


No, you haven't. I've become a bit rusty at destroying xian arguments, and I can rip your arguments apart with ease. In fact, you're about the easiest person to defeat on this forum (CaDan might be the only easier opponent).

I would like to see you diagram the sentence under discussion and show how you're parsing it

I've already done that. No one gets to heaven except by following Jesus.

You people are boring.

[CaDan]

*raises eyebrow* No, undefined terms are needed to avoid infinite regress. The dictionary is finite, after all.

The owls are not what they seem.

"The" dictionary may be finite, but it is not complete.

Why do you ask questions to which you seem to know the answer?

Because the chocolate bunny is made of aluminum, laughter, and TCP packets.

[Goliath]

The owls are not what they seem.

Because the chocolate bunny is made of aluminum, laughter, and TCP packets.



Irrelevant gibberrish.



"The" dictionary may be finite, but it is not complete.



Yes, hence the need for undefined terms.

What's wrong with you?

[CaDan]

Irrelevant gibberrish.

Yup.

Yes, hence the need for undefined terms.

What's wrong with you?

I conceded there were undefined terms floating about. You are the one asserting via that fine liguist Mr. Limbaugh that words have meaning. Which position would you like to take--Augustine's or Austin's?

[seebs]

One word: context.

Okay.

I've already done that. No one gets to heaven except by following Jesus.

You haven't shown that. The text you cited didn't say anything about "following".

Show your work. How, exactly, does the context support your interpretation?

For that matter, what makes you think that all people who follow Jesus are thinking of themselves as "following Jesus"?

If I give someone a problem involving a herd of mixed giraffes, cattle, and ostriches, and counts of legs and wings, and I say "no man solves this problem except through Diophantine equations", what happens if he says "no, no, I solved it by figuring out the relationships between the count of wings and the count of legs, and solving for X?"

[Goliath]

I'm done dealing with you, church rat. You now have about ten and a half hours to ban me before I start spamming with porn links.

[CaDan]

I tell you before. Tattoos are permanent.

You tiger now.

[ksen]

I'm done dealing with you, church rat. You now have about ten and a half hours to ban me before I start spamming with porn links.

You gonna at least admit you were wrong about the "no water" thing over in the other thread before you start your porn tantrum?

[flesh99]

I'm done dealing with you, church rat. You now have about ten and a half hours to ban me before I start spamming with porn links.
Are you going to throw yourself down on the floor, hold your breath, and kick your feet as well?

Goliath I will be honest. I don't know how to deal with you most days. But you are acting like a spoiled brat right now. Some days it seems there is common ground and others it seems you will attack anyone and everyone who happens to believe in Christ. We are not the problem here. We do not change, daily, how we interact with people. Why try and force us to ban you? If you are so much smarter than us then show us the error of our ways. Instead of saying people are stupid and gloating without even bothering to refute their valid points why not actually try and engage people in dialog? Come on dude you are the one acting like my three year old right now get over it already.

[Goliath]

You haven't shown that. The text you cited didn't say anything about "following".

It's the only thing that makes sense.

How, exactly, does the context support your interpretation?

Again: I interpret nothing. I read what's there. I won't repeat that again. Pay attention!



For that matter, what makes you think that all people who follow Jesus are thinking of themselves as "following Jesus"?



Are you trying to accuse me of following Jesus? That would be an unforgivable insult.


If I give someone a problem involving a herd of mixed giraffes, cattle, and ostriches, and counts of legs and wings, and I say "no man solves this problem except through Diophantine equations", what happens if he says "no, no, I solved it by figuring out the relationships between the count of wings and the count of legs, and solving for X?"

Then you explain what Diophantine equations are and that he did, in fact, use Diophantine equations to solve the problem. Did you ask me that question because you didn't know the answer?

[seebs]

It's the only thing that makes sense.

Er, makes sense how? You're interpreting it as "following". Can you show some rationale that explains why "following" is what's at issue?

Again: I interpret nothing. I read what's there. I won't repeat that again. Pay attention!

See above. "The only thing that makes sense" is a kind of interpretation. The text does not have the word "following", but you consider it to be about following because this is a way of understanding it which makes sense or something.

Are you trying to accuse me of following Jesus? That would be an unforgivable insult.

I have no idea. I would never accuse you of following the thing you are talking about when you talk about Jesus.

But look at it this way. If by "gravity", you mean "the force that compels people to rape children", and by "gravity", I mean "the force that pulls us towards the Earth so our inertia doesn't just fling us off into space", and I say that you are subject to the thing I am referring to as "gravity", I have not accused you of raping children.

Then you explain what Diophantine equations are and that he did, in fact, use Diophantine equations to solve the problem. Did you ask me that question because you didn't know the answer?

No, I asked it because this seems to me what's at issue here. The things you are attaching to phrases like "following Jesus" are so far from anything I can come up with from the text that I have really no idea what you're talking about most of the time.

[Goliath]

Er, makes sense how? You're interpreting it as "following". Can you show some rationale that explains why "following" is what's at issue?

Well, because Jesus (were he to exist) probably wouldn't want people to drill through his fucking skull, now wouldn't he?

Why are you being so dense? What happened to the old seebs--the seebs who was actually a challenge in battle?



See above. "The only thing that makes sense" is a kind of interpretation. The text does not have the word "following", but you consider it to be about following because this is a way of understanding it which makes sense or something.



We've been over this. You lose (again).

Moving on....



I have no idea. I would never accuse you of following the thing you are talking about when you talk about Jesus.


Then you would never accuse me of following Jesus? I want a "yes" or "no" answer to this, please.



If by "gravity", you mean "the force that compels people to rape children",



I don't. Moving on...


No, I asked it because this seems to me what's at issue here. The things you are attaching to phrases like "following Jesus" are so far from anything I can come up with from the text that I have really no idea what you're talking about most of the time.

Then how is it that only you and I are in disagreement about this, when the rest of the xians on this board seem to actually be able to read the text and figure out what it says?

[seebs]

Well, because Jesus (were he to exist) probably wouldn't want people to drill through his fucking skull, now wouldn't he?

So, you're making a decision about how to read text based on analysis. That's interpretation.

So, you're saying that, given the two choices of "drill a hole through his skull" or "follow him", "follow him" is a better choice. What about other possible ways in which this thing might happen? What if his mere existence or presence, or some action he took, arranged the thing, and neither following nor drilling holes was needed?

Why are you being so dense? What happened to the old seebs--the seebs who was actually a challenge in battle?

We've been over this. You lose (again).

Declaring victory buys you nothing. In fact, you've just established, above, that you are interpreting. You even explained how!

Then you would never accuse me of following Jesus? I want a "yes" or "no" answer to this, please.

It is not well-enough defined to answer. The question is ill-formed. "Is x a member of G? Yes or no!" I don't know enough about either x or G to form an opinion.

Then how is it that only you and I are in disagreement about this, when the rest of the xians on this board seem to actually be able to read the text and figure out what it says?

You are arguing for what is certainly a very common interpretation. Most of them, however, would be able to show a variety of other passages which they take as guidance to inform the understanding of this one. They could advance an argument for their position, showing how it fits in with the rest of the text. With an argument advanced, we could then get into the question of whether the argument is persuasive.

But until you are ready to talk about the reasoning and evidence (you've at least presented some reasoning, in that first paragraph above), there's nothing TO argue; just did-not/did-so, which is dull.

[Goliath]

So, you're making a decision about how to read text based on analysis. That's interpretation.

No, I threw an idiotic reading of (well, really "reading into") the text, partially out of frustration and partially to amuse myself. That you took it as an admission of defeat adds a bit more frustration and a bit more amusement to the mix.


Declaring victory buys you nothing.


Yes, it buys me time: time I otherwise would've wasted explaining the same thing to you over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and overover and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and overover and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.


It is not well-enough defined to answer. The question is ill-formed.


No, it isn't. Would you ever accuse me of following the teachings of the entity "Jesus" that is the son of the xian god? What is ill-posed about that question?

"Is x a member of G? Yes or no!" I don't know enough about either x or G to form an opinion.


Nor do I...what does that have to do with my question?


You are arguing for what is certainly a very common interpretation. Most of them, however, would be able to show a variety of other passages which they take as guidance to inform the understanding of this one. They could advance an argument for their position, showing how it fits in with the rest of the text. With an argument advanced, we could then get into the question of whether the argument is persuasive.

But until you are ready to talk about the reasoning and evidence (you've at least presented some reasoning, in that first paragraph above), there's nothing TO argue; just did-not/did-so, which is dull.

I've addressed this. I'm done repeating myself. What you've lost in your debating ability, you've more than made up for in the ability to try my patience.

[Glass*Soul]

Try reading the bible, specifically the hate-filled blather about "only through following me will you get to heaven", or something like that...it's been years since I've looked at the passage in question.

I'm going to try to say something about this passage. This might be long...

First of all, I'm going to quote a great deal more than seebs did, and I'm going to actually start in the previous chapter. The chapter marks were not in the originals and I think this is an example of an unfortunate break in the narative. To set the scene, this is taking place in the upper room during the last supper, just after Judas has left...

John 13:37-14:9, 14:21

Peter said to him, "Lord, why can I not follow You right now? I will lay down my life for you."

Jesus answered, "Will you lay down your life for Me? Truly, truly, I say to you, a cock shall not crow, until you deny Me three times. Let not your heart be troubled, believe in God, believe also in Me. In My father's house are many mansions, if it were not so, I would have told you, for I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you to myself, that where I am, there you may be also. And you know the way where I am going."

Thomas said to Him, "Lord, we do not know where You are going, how do we know the way?"

Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through Me. If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; from now on you know Him, and have seen Him."

Philip said to Him, "Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us."

Jesus said to him, "Have I been so long with you, and you have not come to know Me, Philip? He who has seen me has seen the Father; how do you say, 'Show us the Father?'...[I'm snipping quite a bit here]...He who has my commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves Me; and he who loves Me shall be loved by My Father, and I will love him, and will disclose Myself to him."

The entire discourse is more than a little Gnostic in nature. Jesus is attempting to impart a mystery (a spiritual truth that must be expereinced to be understood) to his disciples, so it is not unreasonable to approach the entire thing with the assumption that the plain meaning of the words may fall short of the full concept he's communicating. Imagine if you will very solemnly implied winks and nods throughout...

Be that as it may:

Peter will deny him. Nonetheless he is not to allow his heart to be troubled. The "place" is still being prepared for him. He's included.

Thomas is an arch skeptic. His name will later become synonymous with doubt. That's OK. Jesus reassures him that he knows the way. He's included.

Philip wants to see the father. He's missing the point. The point isn't a revelation of God. The point is doing Jesus' commandments...the pure, expert knowing that comes from doing the same work he did until the truth of it is engraved into your very being. He's included.

So, where is the "place" he's talking about here. Where is that place that Jesus is going to that they know the way to whether they realize it yet or not? It's maybe not what we think...

John 14:22-23

Judas (not Iscariot) said to Him, "Lord, what then has happened that You are going to disclose Yourself to us, and not to the world?"

Jesus answered and said to him, "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him, and make Our abode within him."

So the Father's house with many mansions that Jesus was going to and to which even those who deny him out of fear and those who disbelieve in him because they are skeptics and those who have had no vision of the Father whatsoever, but are intimately aquainted with the prosaic day-to-day labor of doing His work, know the way...



is....



wait for it...




wait for it...



within those very people.

[Goliath]

So there's a mansion inside of a person? Come on! Can't you do any better than that?

[ravenscape]

There are mansions in my mind.

[Goliath]

Then you've got a big, melon fucking head...

*rolls eyes*

Come on, people!

[ravenscape]

Then you've got a big, melon fucking head...

*rolls eyes*

Come on, people!

Metaphor. Lots of metaphor. I love metaphors.

[Peter Kirby]

/goes there.

Alright, Goliath, what have you got here? Do you wish to offer any thoughts of your own, beyond that of your disdain?

[Glass*Soul]

So there's a mansion inside of a person? Come on! Can't you do any better than that?

It's not an inapt metaphor for a person's inner being.

For instance, it is not unusual to dream of being inside an enormous house with many rooms, some of them furnished, some not, some locked, some disturbing. It's generally accepted that when we dream of mansions that it's symbolic of our inner selves in all our complicatedness.

What's interesting about the passage is that Jesus is talking about going to his father's house, one that has many mansions; and the reader, along with the disciples, assumes he's talking about a distant, mysterious place...but if you keep reading he eventaully reveals that his Father's abode is in this startling location--inside us. So, the passage isn't about being included or excluded from something or someplace as much as it is about deciding to participate in the inner experiences that come from doing the same kind of work Jesus did.

[Goliath]

Alright, Goliath, what have you got here?

Do you mean "here" as in this thread? Quite a bit of boredom.


Do you wish to offer any thoughts of your own, beyond that of your disdain?

I wish I could find a worthy opponent on this board.

[Goliath]

For instance, it is not unusual to dream of being inside an enormous house with many rooms, some of them furnished, some not, some locked, some disturbing.

*nod* That seems at least plausible. I might have had a dream of that type, but I don't remember a vast majority of my dreams.

It's generally accepted that when we dream of mansions that it's symbolic of our inner selves in all our complicatedness.

Yes, it's symbolic of ourselves. You don't have a ballroom next to your inner ear, however.


What's interesting about the passage is that Jesus is talking about going to his father's house, one that has many mansions; and the reader, along with the disciples, assumes he's talking about a distant, mysterious place...but if you keep reading he eventaully reveals that his Father's abode is in this startling location--inside us.

How sickening...

[Glass*Soul]

*nod* That seems at least plausible. I might have had a dream of that type, but I don't remember a vast majority of my dreams.

Yes, it's symbolic of ourselves. You don't have a ballroom next to your inner ear, however.

Exactly.


How sickening...

How so?

[Peter Kirby]

I wish I could find a worthy opponent on this board.
Why are you looking for an opponent? What do you seek to oppose, and why? (If your answer is candid, we could make this the basis of a new thread to prevent too much sprawl.)

[Goliath]

How so?

The idea that heaven is "inside me" is absolutely sickening. I don't want heaven to be inside me! I want to be part of a demonic invasion force, slaughtering angels left and right, and doing my part in making heaven a better place.

And before you ask:

1. No, I don't believe that the xian god exists.
2. No, I don't believe that angels exist.
3. No, I don't believe that heaven exists.
4. No, I don't believe that hell exists.
5. No, I don't believe that Satan exists.
6. No, I don't believe that demons exist.

[Goliath]

Why are you looking for an opponent? What do you seek to oppose, and why?

Well, I'm an atheist on a xian board... Isn't it obvious?

[Peter Kirby]

Well, I'm an atheist on a xian board... Isn't it obvious?
No, humor me.

[Goliath]

No, humor me.

Do you mean that it isn't obvious to you, or that it is, but you want me to tell you, anyway?

If the latter...well, I enjoy the thrill of (verbal) battle with xians, I enjoy victory (after victory, after victory, after victory), it helps to keep my mind sharp, and it is an occasional source of shadenfreude.

ETA: Now, however, is not the time for battle. Now is the time for sleep. Goodnight.

[ravenscape]

do other people's troubles give you enjoyment? Why?

[Goliath]

(Okay, not quite to bed, yet...)

do other people's troubles give you enjoyment? Why?

*raises eyebrow* Huh? I'm talking about battle, not getting enjoyment out of other people's problems. Where the fuck did that come from?

Say, do you like peanut butter and sardines?

[ravenscape]

I got it from the word shadenfreude. That's the literal meaning of the word.

I like peanut butter. And I like anchovies when I'm not being all vegetarian and stuff.

Never cared much for sardines.

[Goliath]

I got it from the word shadenfreude. That's the literal meaning of the word.

Hmmm...well, I get enjoyment from the reactions of the xians to the battle at hand (such reactions are often frustration and defeat). I guess "schadenfreude" might not be the best word to describe it. My apologies.

[Peter Kirby]

Do you mean that it isn't obvious to you, or that it is, but you want me to tell you, anyway?
It is not obvious to me why you seek an opponent. It has been clarified in the previous post before the one I am replying to, that the opponent you seek is a Christian. Yet it remains elusive to me why you sought an opponent at all, to which I figured there was something you sought to oppose for some specific reason, an aim achieved by finding a worthy opponent, one who could well represent that thing, and demonstrate that this thing is false. Accordingly, what do you find false, and why do you seek to show it false?

If the latter...well, I enjoy the thrill of (verbal) battle with xians, I enjoy victory (after victory, after victory, after victory), it helps to keep my mind sharp, and it is an occasional source of shadenfreude.
Paul says (from memory), that if we are wrong, we are the most miserable of men. But I may add the correction, that the most miserable of men are those whose debate with the Christians is solely yet avidly pursued, avowedly, for its value as mental masturbation. For the Christians' folly in devoting time to this pursuit is undiscovered, but the atheistic enthusiast, who debates for pleasure, not only knows that the time spent is folly but must acknowledge it as such.

Is this really nothing more to you than Guitar Hero II with words instead of button pressing, an activity of debate for pleasure that is supposed to sharpen, respectively, hand-eye coordination or polemical aptitude? And is there some other good purpose to which that aptitude is put, or is its pragmatism completely on a par with electronic game twitchiness?

[Goliath]

It is not obvious to me why you seek an opponent. It has been clarified in the previous post before the one I am replying to, that the opponent you seek is a Christian. Yet it remains elusive to me why you sought an opponent at all, to which I figured there was something you sought to oppose for some specific reason, an aim achieved by finding a worthy opponent, one who could well represent that thing, and demonstrate that this thing is false. Accordingly, what do you find false, and why do you seek to show it false?

My main goal is not to show that any one particular thing is false. I am looking to encounter xian arguments and destroy faulty xian arguments that I find. Every xian argument that I've found has been defeated (most have been very easily destroyed).

Is this really nothing more to you than Guitar Hero II with words instead of button pressing, an activity of debate for pleasure that is supposed to sharpen, respectively, hand-eye coordination or polemical aptitude?

Well, it's a source of amusement, and it provides me with a chance to find a proof of the existence of a god (which is one of my many hobbies).

ETA: And now, I really must get to bed. Goodnight.

[ravenscape]

Hmmm...well, I get enjoyment from the reactions of the xians to the battle at hand (such reactions are often frustration and defeat). I guess "schadenfreude" might not be the best word to describe it. My apologies.
Thanks, Goliath. Glad I asked. I have a tendency toward literal-mindedness at times. :redface:

Pleasant dreams!

[Glass*Soul]

The idea that heaven is "inside me" is absolutely sickening. I don't want heaven to be inside me! I want to be part of a demonic invasion force, slaughtering angels left and right, and doing my part in making heaven a better place.

Well, I think, and I may be wrong in this, that the passage isn't ultimately about heaven at all. I think Jesus may have meant to evoke heaven at first to get the disciples interest but then led them step-by-step to seeing things from an entirely different perspective--a persepective grounded in the here and now and as inclusive as any one who cares about it needs it to be.

I don't like ideas of heaven either, to tell you the truth. If such a thing existed as I have often had described to me, cruel and artificial with a narcissistic monster at its center, I would be forced to join you. Even as a metaphor, I'm troubled by it and would rather do without it.


And before you ask:

1. No, I don't believe that the xian god exists.
2. No, I don't believe that angels exist.
3. No, I don't believe that heaven exists.
4. No, I don't believe that hell exists.
5. No, I don't believe that Satan exists.
6. No, I don't believe that demons exist.

I wan't going to ask. I had gathered as much already. I don't believe in any of those things either.

[Goliath]

Thanks, Goliath. Glad I asked. I have a tendency toward literal-mindedness at times. :redface:

No, the mistake wasn't yours. It was mine. I was not being precise. I'll have to think about how to more carefully phrase my reasons for engaging xians in battle.

Pleasant dreams!

Thanks. You too. :)

[Goliath]

Well, I think, and I may be wrong in this, that the passage isn't ultimately about heaven at all.

Then what is the "mansion" supposed to be?

(Gah! Must...get....to.....bed.....)

[Glass*Soul]

I'll answer in the morning.

G'night. :)

[seebs]

So there's a mansion inside of a person? Come on! Can't you do any better than that?

There are whole universes inside people.

It's metaphorical language. Mostly. The thing I really live in is my mental model of the world. My responses are mostly to what I think is happening.

[seebs]

I don't like ideas of heaven either, to tell you the truth. If such a thing existed as I have often had described to me, cruel and artificial with a narcissistic monster at its center, I would be forced to join you. Even as a metaphor, I'm troubled by it and would rather do without it.

I tend to feel the same way. I do not much care for the special holiday free of all the "bad people" that some people want. For one thing, I sure wouldn't qualify.

I have, time and time again, found that there is a great joy in getting to know the people that I have been told are bad. The exiles and outcasts, the people who are mean, the people who are lecherous or greedy... Just about all of them turn out to be worth the trouble of getting to know.

So, insofar as the point of the thing is to exclude people who are imperfect, I have no interest; it's the imperfect people that, to me, are glorious in their successes.

[seebs]

Then what is the "mansion" supposed to be?

It's a metaphor, presumably. What for? Aspects of our internal state; our different ways of being, and of interacting with the world. It's a fairly common metaphor, in books, and in dreams, and in just about everything else, for the internals of the human mind. The things we are not comfortable with may be portrayed as locked rooms; connections between things as passages.

Like many metaphors, it is essentially imprecise, and precision wouldn't do it much good. It's a way to approach a thing that may be evocative of thoughts that help us get a grip on it.

[Goliath]

So what does the "mansion" have to do with heaven?

[Glass*Soul]

So what does the "mansion" have to do with heaven?

I think that the closest we can relate it to the idea of heaven is that heaven is sometimes a metaphor for a state of being that is fully unified. Apparently in Jesus' worldview this unified state could be pictured as an interlocked intimacy* between what he was referring to as "the Father", his commandments regarding loving one another and the interior life of those who follow his commandments. The disciples start out by responding to what he's descibing as if it were a literal place, but he guides them into thinking of it as a way of being. You can see the nature of their questions changing as the conversation unfolds. They stop asking "where" questions and start asking how they can know what they need to know to participate. And his answer is repeatedly to keep his commandments about loving one another.

I suspect that I'm touching on what Jesus was referring to in this passage when I'm trying to love in difficult circumstances and realize that I need to do some interior work before I'm going to be able to manage it. Maybe I have some hidden prejudice that I need to at least acknowledge first, or something along that line. So, there's this sense in which I walk through the inner mansion, open a neglected room and rearrange a few things. The net result may be, in the best of times, that I'm more more unified inwardly while enjoying a more intimate level of friendship outwardly. What's more I think the process has a natural momentum to it that can be quite astounding.

Since I don't believe in a supernatural "Father" it doesn't help me to think of things in those terms exactly, but the passage as a whole still makes sense to me, in as much as Jesus taught about a workable scheme of relating to people that seems to mutually ennoble the participants. I can have the experience...the gnosis if you will.


*In that day you shall know that I am in My father, and you in Me, and I in you.

[Lanakila]

I have to say I always interpreted that passage exactly as Goliath is doing so. I've got a mansion is a hymn we sang in Baptist churches. We even joked that we'd get a mansion next door to a pentecostal. Not that mansions are inside of us, or God, but that literally in heaven we'd get to have mansions as we rule and reign with Christ.

Yes I know it sounds ridiculous looking at it literally, but a good portion of the Christian church does just that.

[benjdm]

I've always thought that particular verse wasn't very specific. That said, my recollection of my church's teachings was that non-Christians went to hell.

[Glass*Soul]

I've always thought that particular verse wasn't very specific. That said, my recollection of my church's teachings was that non-Christians went to hell.

My sense is that Jesus is purposefully using language in this passage that can't be pinned down because if his listeners are drawing rigid mental schematics of how all the elements he's bringing into the discussion relate to one another, they're not quite grasping the concept. (Sort of like me reading Brian Greene's explanation of String theory in terms of Calabi-Yai shapes, space-tearing flop transitions and mirror rephrasings. :D) IOW if someone reads John 13:31 thru 14:31 and thinks they've deduced from it who's "going to heaven" and who isn't, they may need to read it again...or better yet, go out and practice loving people and actually have the experience he's talking about.

John 9:1 thru 10:42 is interesting to look at too. In this story Jesus heals a bind man on the Sabbath. The Pharisees get ahold of the man, grill him and try to maneuver him into condemning Jesus as a sinner. The man gives a remarkabley seebs-like answer: "Whether He is a sinner, I do not know; one thing I do know, that, whereas I was blind, now I see." After the inquisition the Pharisees put the man out. (Out of fellowship with his synagogue? I'm not enough of a scholar to know if this is what this means.)

Aftereward Jesus asks him if he believes in the Son of Man. He doesn't even understand the question, but that doesn't matter. He's had the experience of being healed.

There's more than one way to see and more than one way to be blind.

It's directly after this that Jesus makes the enigmantic statement that he has "other" sheep and descibes them, again, in terms of an intimate experiential knowledge all tangled up between himself, the Father and his "work". It's not an exclusive club tied to pedigree or orthodoxy. All that's requried is to have an inkling of what loving one another requires and thus to begin the process. You don't have to put the right name on it to recognize it and be recognized by it, so to speak.

[CaDan]

The author of GJohn is especially fond of metaphors. From him we get "the way, the truth, and the life," "the bread of life," and the metaphor of the vine and the branches.

[Glass*Soul]

The author of GJohn is especially fond of metaphors. From him we get "the way, the truth, and the life," "the bread of life," and the metaphor of the vine and the branches.

In 10:9 he interjects the observation, "This figure of speach Jesus spoke to them, but they did not understand what those things were which he had been saying to them."

[cas07]

The idea that heaven is "inside me" is absolutely sickening. I don't want heaven to be inside me! I want to be part of a demonic invasion force, slaughtering angels left and right, and doing my part in making heaven a better place.

And before you ask:

1. No, I don't believe that the xian god exists.
2. No, I don't believe that angels exist.
3. No, I don't believe that heaven exists.
4. No, I don't believe that hell exists.
5. No, I don't believe that Satan exists.
6. No, I don't believe that demons exist.
goliath, can you please clarify something for me? in one part of this post you state the following: I want to be part of a demonic invasion force, slaughtering angels left and right, and doing my part in making heaven a better place yet you go on to list the things you don't believe in. yet there are several on your list that you appear to want to be involved with: demonic forces slaughtering angels in order to make heaven a better place...
my question is: what exactly do you believe?

[cas07]

i am one of those who believes quite differently from the majority here, but i am ok with that. it was quite interesting and eye-opening to see what others believe, whether they are christians or not. thanks for having this discussion...

[Goliath]

my question is: what exactly do you believe?

Well, here is a complete list of beliefs that I hold regarding the existence of gods or anything supernatural:

[seebs]

Well, here is a complete list of beliefs that I hold regarding the existence of gods or anything supernatural:

Okay.

How about right and wrong? Can you make some statements about what you see as good, or as evil? In particular, it seems clear to me that you're judging Christianity according to a moral system. What moral system is that? What do you think is right, or wrong? I think if you can talk about it on its own, rather than solely in relation to Christianity, it'll be a lot easier to understand.

[Goliath]

Okay.

How about right and wrong? Can you make some statements about what you see as good, or as evil? In particular, it seems clear to me that you're judging Christianity according to a moral system. What moral system is that? What do you think is right, or wrong? I think if you can talk about it on its own, rather than solely in relation to Christianity, it'll be a lot easier to understand.

I use the same system of morality that you use, seebs, and you know it: the system of morality tempered by societal norms and the golden rule. I adamantly refuse to let you "play dumb" on this issue.

[cas07]

Well, here is a complete list of beliefs that I hold regarding the existence of gods or anything supernatural:ok, apparently you don't believe in anything having to do with God, i actually figured that out a long time ago. i still don't understand, given that you have no belief in God, why you made that statement (on more than one occassion)?

[seebs]

I use the same system of morality that you use, seebs, and you know it: the system of morality tempered by societal norms and the golden rule. I adamantly refuse to let you "play dumb" on this issue.

No, I don't "know" it. Your evaluations are sometimes similar to mine, and sometimes different from mine. Since everyone I know comes to different conclusions on moral questions, I generally don't like to assume that I know their moral system.

Don't mistake caution about making assumptions for playing dumb. I honestly don't know what your moral code is. I could guess at it some, but for instance, I would have had no idea whether you considered the golden rule a good one; some people don't.

There are many, many, systems of morality built around social norms and the golden rule. In America, "social norms" are disproportionately likely to include a moral objection to gay sex. I am not sure, but my guess is that you have no moral objection at all to other peoples' consensual sexual activities. So, there's more than just social norms going on here, or you have social norms from a particular subset of our culture.

What about the teaching, found in a few religions, that one should love one's enemies? I'm guessing you don't go with that one, but I don't know for sure.

[Goliath]

Don't mistake caution about making assumptions for playing dumb.

Fine. I'll believe you (for now).


I would have had no idea whether you considered the golden rule a good one

Of course I do. Who wouldn't?

you have no moral objection at all to other peoples' consensual sexual activities.

Correct, as long as we're specifying that these people are adults.

What about the teaching, found in a few religions, that one should love one's enemies? I'm guessing you don't go with that one, but I don't know for sure.

Well, since loving my enemies would be about the most idiotic thing I could possibly do...no. No, I don't go with that, and I never will.

[Goliath]

i still don't understand, given that you have no belief in God, why you made that statement (on more than one occassion)?

Because I find your god to be a vile abomination. If, after I die, I end up before the throne of the xian god, then he'd better watch the fuck out, because I'd do my damndest to destroy him (not that I'd likely succeed, but hey, I can dream, can't I?).

I can tell you one thing for damn sure: these knees will not voluntarily bend, and this head will not voluntarily bow before such a monster.

[Glass*Soul]

Goliath: I'm wondering if the problem in the case of this particular piece of writing (John ch. 14) is really more the type of language used rather than the content of the message.

When I first began seriously trying to do a decent anti-apologetic about two years ago, I quickly learned the difference between the language of science, in which one tries to make the meaning of each word as precise as possible, and the language of myth, in which one attempts to broaden terms to hold as much meaning as possible.

Maybe I should have said that before I jumped in trying to do an exegesis of the passage.

[Glass*Soul]

Because I find your god to be a vile abomination. If, after I die, I end up before the throne of the xian god, then he'd better watch the fuck out, because I'd do my damndest to destroy him (not that I'd likely succeed, but hey, I can dream, can't I?).

I can tell you one thing for damn sure: these knees will not voluntarily bend, and this head will not voluntarily bow before such a monster.

Indeed. I wonder if the author of Job imagined the same thing? He knew something was desperately, monstrougly wrong with the God he conceived.

[Goliath]

When I first seriously began trying to do a decent anti-apologetic about two years ago, I quickly learned the difference between scientific language in which one tries to make the meaning of each word as precise as possible and the language of myth in which one attempts to broaden terms to hold as much meaning as possible.

*raises eyebrow* Well, if you redefine words to mean what they don't ordinarily mean, then you lose meaning. If, for example, I said "Today, I put on my toaster oven and playstation to school" and if I tell you that "toaster oven" also means "shoes" and "playstation" also means "walked", then how much meaning have I really added?

[Glass*Soul]

*raises eyebrow* Well, if you redefine words to mean what they don't ordinarily mean, then you lose meaning. If, for example, I said "Today, I put on my toaster oven and playstation to school" and if I tell you that "toaster oven" also means "shoes" and "playstation" also means "walked", then how much meaning have I really added?

It's not an arbitraty substitution code. It would be more the difference between saying someone had legs "like tree trunks" vs. giving you a precise measurement of their girth. The latter gives a sinlge useful piece of information, and in some situations that may be exactly what is wanted and needed. The former on the other hand manages to convey the idea of size, strength, rigidity, perhaps even magesty, etc. Each person who hears the phrase is going to bring a slightly different set of associations to it. This is very useful in story telling where you are inviting people to have an experience without rigidly controlling exactly what that experience will be.

[Goliath]

It's not an arbitraty substitution code. It would be more the difference between saying someone had legs "like tree trunks" vs. giving you a precise measurement of their girth. The latter gives a sinlge useful piece of information, and in some situations that may be exactly what is wanted and needed. The former on the other hand manages to convey the idea of size, strength, rigidity, perhaps even magesty, etc. Each person who hears the phrase is going to bring a slightly different set of associations to it. This is very useful in story telling where you are inviting people to have an experience without rigidly controlling exactly what that experience will be.

Well, that may be all well and good, but we're talking about the bible here--the word of a god.

[Glass*Soul]

Well, that may be all well and good, but we're talking about the bible here--the word of a god.

But neither of us believes that.

[Goliath]

But neither of us believes that.

So then, why are you defending the bible?

[Glass*Soul]

So then, why are you defending the bible?

Defanging monsters.

[seebs]

So then, why are you defending the bible?

I can't speak for Glass*Soul. I, to, do not believe it is "the word of a god". I believe it is writings, by people, about things that were very important to them, and that one of those things is what they called "God".

I read a lot of peoples' writings about what matters to them. There's a blog I quite like, called "Waiter Rant". It's just some guy. He's a waiter, of course. He writes about stuff. It is not the words of a god; it's the words of a waiter. Same species as us. He wrote an article about, one day, meeting the woman who destroyed his previous career, and wrecked his life. His story of how it felt to meet her, and realize that he had forgiven her in the intervening years, was important to me. I would defend it as a good thing to read and understand, even though I neither know nor care about the accuracy of some of the details in the story. That's not the point; he captured something important about the relationship of the forgiver and the forgiven.

The Bible is interesting to me because it contains things which I have found useful to me. I don't care whether it's perfect or flawless or "the word of a god". I think, however, that it is useful and it can have value to us, if we take it for what it is and not for something it was never meant to be.

We have a cat toy; it's a string with some dangly bits on the end, on a stick. It's a very good cat toy. If I tried to use it as a climbing device, I would probably get badly hurt. If I were surrounded by people who tried to use it as a climbing device, and promoted it as the idealized climbing device, I would be under a lot of pressure to view it that way. I might, then, meet someone who realized that it was a crappy climbing device, and say "well, yeah, but it's a great cat toy", and he might point out that that hardly matters, as it's supposed to be a climbing device.

Supposed by whom? I don't suppose it to be a climbing device.

[Goliath]

Defanging monsters.

*raises eyebrow* Which monsters?

[Goliath]

I can't speak for Glass*Soul. I, to, do not believe it is "the word of a god". I believe it is writings, by people, about things that were very important to them, and that one of those things is what they called "God".

But there are passages that describe it (or at least parts of it) as coming directly from the xian god (I forget which passages...as you know, I read the bible prettymuch as little as possible).



There's a blog I quite like, called "Waiter Rant". It's just some guy. He's a waiter, of course. He writes about stuff. It is not the words of a god; it's the words of a waiter. Same species as us. He wrote an article about, one day, meeting the woman who destroyed his previous career, and wrecked his life. His story of how it felt to meet her, and realize that he had forgiven her in the intervening years, was important to me.



I know that blog (although I haven't been keeping up with it, lately...my blogviewing time gets sucked up by academic blogs, nowadays), and I've even read that entry. Most of the way through the entry (maybe 3/4? not sure), I grumbled, closed the browser window, and yelled out "Gahhh!! Why!? Frickin' idiot!!!"

The Bible is interesting to me because it contains things which I have found useful to me. I don't care whether it's perfect or flawless or "the word of a god". I think, however, that it is useful and it can have value to us, if we take it for what it is and not for something it was never meant to be.

If it isn't the word of a god, then it's errant. What sense does it make to follow an errant text in order to become perfect?

ETA: And now it's time to go to bed.

[seebs]

But there are passages that describe it (or at least parts of it) as coming directly from the xian god (I forget which passages...as you know, I read the bible prettymuch as little as possible).

Yeah. Well, the thing is, I think the people who cite those passages as meaning that have misunderstood them.

I know that blog (although I haven't been keeping up with it, lately...my blogviewing time gets sucked up by academic blogs, nowadays), and I've even read that entry. Most of the way through the entry (maybe 3/4? not sure), I grumbled, closed the browser window, and yelled out "Gahhh!! Why!? Frickin' idiot!!!"

Was the question rhetorical?

I forgive people, because I am happier when I do. Nicely mundane. Holding grudges has never done me a bit of good.

If it isn't the word of a god, then it's errant. What sense does it make to follow an errant text in order to become perfect?

To follow it exclusively, never taking so much as a step beyond it? None at all.

To follow the path it suggests, exploring in that direction, taking the guidance of those who explored the question before me? It makes some sense.

ETA: And now it's time to go to bed.

Sleep well.

[Joykins]

Luke 17:20-21

Once, having been asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, "The kingdom of God does not come with your careful observation, nor will people say, 'Here it is,' or 'There it is,' because the kingdom of God is within you."

[cas07]

Because I find your god to be a vile abomination. If, after I die, I end up before the throne of the xian god, then he'd better watch the fuck out, because I'd do my damndest to destroy him (not that I'd likely succeed, but hey, I can dream, can't I?).

I can tell you one thing for damn sure: these knees will not voluntarily bend, and this head will not voluntarily bow before such a monster.well, while i am sorry to hear that you hate Him so much, i believe it to be your right to feel however you choose to about Him. obviously i have not experienced what you appear to have in order to hate him so much, but i do appreciate that you were willing to expound on what you do/do not believe.
(for the record i am glad that you decided to stay for a while, i sure would have missed you had you left)

[Goliath]

Yeah. Well, the thing is, I think the people who cite those passages as meaning that have misunderstood them.

And they'd say the same about you.



Was the question rhetorical?



No.


I forgive people, because I am happier when I do. Nicely mundane. Holding grudges has never done me a bit of good.


It's done me some good.


To follow the path it suggests, exploring in that direction, taking the guidance of those who explored the question before me? It makes some sense.


No, it doesn't. The "path" is supposed to lead to perfection, not an approximation of perfection.

[Goliath]

Luke 17:20-21

Once, having been asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, "The kingdom of God does not come with your careful observation, nor will people say, 'Here it is,' or 'There it is,' because the kingdom of God is within you."

How disgusting (just as over 90% of the bible verses I've ever read are disgusting).

[Goliath]

well, while i am sorry to hear that you hate Him so much, i believe it to be your right to feel however you choose to about Him.

*nod* That alone separates you from quite a few xians that I've encountered.

i do appreciate that you were willing to expound on what you do/do not believe.
(for the record i am glad that you decided to stay for a while, i sure would have missed you had you left)

Thanks. :)

[cas07]

*nod* That alone separates you from quite a few xians that I've encountered.i am truly sorry that your experience has been otherwise.


Thanks. :)you are most welcome :D

[Joykins]

How disgusting (just as over 90% of the bible verses I've ever read are disgusting).

Nevertheless I have seen you repeatedly emit a garbled understanding of what you think the Bible says, something that smells of "I read it 15 years ago once" and accompanied by what I presume is the most recent hateful-fundie-ranting you've heard as your explanation of what it means. I'm not sure this qualifies as Biblical knowledge.

You may find it disgusting; to each his or her own--but it would behoove you to familiarize yourself with what the text actually says before jumping into attack it. If you don't, that's just *sloppy*.

Heaven itself is not the center of the belief of early Christianity about the afterlife. If you look at the early creeds, gospels, and epistles, it isn't the hope of heaven-in-the-afterlife being held out. I'll not hold my breath for you to tell me what is.

[Goliath]

Nevertheless I have seen you repeatedly emit a garbled understanding of what you think the Bible says, something that smells of "I read it 15 years ago once"

Actually, it was closer to 18 years ago.

and accompanied by what I presume is the most recent hateful-fundie-ranting you've heard as your explanation of what it means. I'm not sure this qualifies as Biblical knowledge.

Of course it does. I haven't read the bible in about 18 years, and yet I have more biblical knowledge than I will ever need.


You may find it disgusting; to each his or her own--but it would behoove you to familiarize yourself with what the text actually says before jumping into attack it. If you don't, that's just *sloppy*.


See above.


Heaven itself is not the center of the belief of early Christianity about the afterlife.

Early xianity is irrelevant to this discussion. How the bible is read now is what's important.

I'll not hold my breath for you to tell me what is.

It's the veritable Wunderland that the xian god has set up for his faithful cronies in the afterlife, so that said cronies can walk around, strumming harps and singing the praises of gawd all day inbetween viewings of the evil sinners roasting in hell.

Again, that's about all I need to know about heaven. Hell is separation from the xian god, so I'd love to sign up for that once I die.

[seebs]

But "how it's read now" is all over the map.

Think about it this way. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that knowledge of the Bible is essentially worthless to you. Fair enough.

However, you are occasionally going to meet a pretty broad range of people to whom it's important. What's important to you is not how you would read it, but how they do read it. A crucial first step is accepting that you can't draw much in the way of reliable conclusions from the mere fact that someone reads the Bible; you need to know more about what they think it says, not because you necessarily care about the book itself, but because you might care about how these people will act.

As you are doubtless aware, there are some people out there who genuinely believe that anyone who speaks against their beliefs ought to die. It is important to know this, so you can avoid them. However, if you treat every religious person as though they believe that, you'll waste a lot of time avoiding people who are totally harmless, and indeed, some who are probably inclined to be pretty friendly and helpful if given half a chance.

You've mentioned wanting to make progress on ways to deal with your hatred of Christianity. I think you might want to abandon the notion that "Christianity" is a single thing at all. There are people whose sense of what things are is open to that kind of vagueness, but I think your mathematically-inclined mind does not work that way. You might do better to treat "Christianity" as being about as broad a term as "numbers", and start coming to terms with the individual variants as things in and of themselves, or as things that people around you will practice.

[Joykins]

Early xianity is irrelevant to this discussion. How the bible is read now is what's important.
[...]


It's the veritable Wunderland that the xian god has set up for his faithful cronies in the afterlife, so that said cronies can walk around, strumming harps and singing the praises of gawd all day inbetween viewings of the evil sinners roasting in hell.

Again, that's about all I need to know about heaven. Hell is separation from the xian god, so I'd love to sign up for that once I die.

Just so you know that vision of heaven is not in the Bible. But I get the feeling you don't actually care what the Bible says; I'd like to discuss that but I see no reason to discuss this straw man bible like thing you are talking about.

Too bad because I thought the discussion might have had potential.

[Glass*Soul]

So then, why are you defending the bible?

Defanging monsters.

*raises eyebrow* Which monsters?

Treating the bible as if it were uniformly evil throughout, just as much as treating it as if it were utterly perfect, gives it too much of the wrong sort of power. My goal is to examine the entire bible as reasonably and as openly as possible, and in as educated and informed a manner as I am able. It is all too often the things that we hold half-hidden and half-forgotten that take on a certain monstrousness. Brought out into the open and examined in the bright light of day, things are much more likely to present themselves as they truly are...and most often, most things will be prosaic once we have done so.

Many parts of the bible are curiosly interesting. Some less so.

There are parts of the bible that strike me as heart-breakingly beautiful, despite my coming to them with as much skepticism as I can muster. They rise above any supernatural entanglements.

There are other parts that are pure crap. If anyone can present to me an apologetic that convinces me I should treat II Peter any differently than I would a Chic tract, I will be flabbergasted.

My exegesis of John 14 was meant to suggest a way of looking at verse 6 that isn't monstrous, and in fact may be closer to how it was meant. I was trying to take the fangs out of it, so to speak. The passage as a whole may be, at worst, an odd way of expressing a basically good concept--that the self examination it requires to love others as we would like to be loved tends to create a inner unity that has a rather empowering/numinous feel to it. Certainly nothing that people can use to bash eachother over the head.

[Peter Kirby]

I would be interested to read your expose on 2 Peter sometime...

[Glass*Soul]

I would be interested to read your expose on 2 Peter sometime...

I've been thinking about starting a topic on it in Apologetics.

[Goliath]

But "how it's read now" is all over the map.

Yes, but "what it means" isn't. Sorry for being unclear.



knowledge of the Bible is essentially worthless to you.



Correct.



However, you are occasionally going to meet a pretty broad range of people to whom it's important.



Agreed.



What's important to you is not how you would read it, but how they do read it.



Actually, well over 90% of the time, neither of those are important, since religion rarely comes up as a topic of conversation amongst the people I know.



A crucial first step is accepting that you can't draw much in the way of reliable conclusions from the mere fact that someone reads the Bible



Agreed. After all, if all I know about someone is that they're reading the bible, then they may be boning up on it in order to refute a pile of apologetic nonsense.


As you are doubtless aware, there are some people out there who genuinely believe that anyone who speaks against their beliefs ought to die.

Not only am I aware of that, but I'm reminded of that nearly every day.



It is important to know this, so you can avoid them.



That may be nearly impossible (at least, not until I move to another area of the country).



However, if you treat every religious person as though they believe that, you'll waste a lot of time avoiding people who are totally harmless, and indeed, some who are probably inclined to be pretty friendly and helpful if given half a chance.



And if you get the shits while your printer is out of toner and decide that all liquids behave like toner, you'll get some printouts in brown, but you'll waste a lot of time and money either cleaning out your printer, or getting a new one.



You've mentioned wanting to make progress on ways to deal with your hatred of Christianity.



Yes, I have. Most of the time, I'd like to jettison my hatred for it, but there are times when I don't give a damn if I do.

You might do better to treat "Christianity" as being about as broad a term as "numbers"

That's ridiculous, and I suspect you know it. There are not infinitely many people.

[Goliath]

Just so you know that vision of heaven is not in the Bible.

Well, even if you're right about that, it doesn't really matter. Automobiles aren't mentioned in the bible, either, but (other than the Amish) you don't see xians refusing to own cars.

But I get the feeling you don't actually care what the Bible says

Well, in most situations, I don't.

I'd like to discuss that but I see no reason to discuss this straw man bible like thing you are talking about.

Too bad because I thought the discussion might have had potential.

*shrug* Suit yourself.

[Goliath]

Treating the bible as if it were uniformly evil throughout

Is this the Jeopardy answer for "Things I don't do" for 100?



There are parts of the bible that strike me as heart-breakingly beautiful



Such as...?



My exegesis of John 14 was meant to suggest a way of looking at verse 6 that isn't monstrous



*shrug* Well, I can come up with a reading in which they're actually talking about what they want for dinner, and where Paul wants to go to White Castle...



and in fact may be closer to how it was meant.



You're welcome to prove this at your convenience.

The passage as a whole may be, at worst, an odd way of expressing a basically good concept

But what about those of us who find heaven to be a reprehensible concept?

[Glass*Soul]

Is this the Jeopardy answer for "Things I don't do" for 100?

Such as...?

*shrug* Well, I can come up with a reading in which they're actually talking about what they want for dinner, and where Paul wants to go to White Castle...

You're welcome to prove this at your convenience.

But what about those of us who find heaven to be a reprehensible concept?

To tell you the truth, you're about to defeat me on this, I think. :) It may be because I'm arriving here blurry-eyed tired at night, but it could also be because I've said some things that I'm less prepared to defend than I should be.

I'm going to step back for a day or two and decide if I really do have something significant to say...something that truly has the potential of establishing some mutually acknowledged common ground between us for the purposes of this discussion. If I can't manage that, then anything I have to say past that point is probably going to feel pretty nebulous to both of us.

It's been quite a while since I've been on the opposite side of a debate with a fellow atheist. It's a valuable experience.

[Moriah Conquering Wind]

Because I find your god to be a vile abomination. If, after I die, I end up before the throne of the xian god, then he'd better watch the fuck out, because I'd do my damndest to destroy him (not that I'd likely succeed, but hey, I can dream, can't I?).

I can tell you one thing for damn sure: these knees will not voluntarily bend, and this head will not voluntarily bow before such a monster.

Thread Necromancy Alert!

HEAR HEAR!!!!