After the last post, after thinking heavily on the nature…

I'm just your typical guy...	...All I need is a dragon to slay and a princess to lay

About this Entry
Posted by: mimeboy00711 Original: 9/24/2006 8:58 PM Views: 1 Comments: 31 eProps: 16 Read Comments Post a Comment Back to Your Xanga Site

Who gave the eProps?
2 eProps from: valleygeek KungFuTree paisagem karatepunk86 dapperdanman52 brerjohn_lives Barefootdixie antieuthyphro

Read or Post Comments

Sunday, September 24, 2006

After the last post, after thinking heavily on the nature of temporality and the restrictions in implies, I'm feeling really assured that Christianity is perhaps not a truth. Nevertheless, I promised I would analyze Christianity under the context of it's own premises, and so I press on with the project.

Or rather, I'd like to. I'm having a problem, though. I think the notion of perfection may be feasible as we have it set, but it requires that we understand the purpose of God. What is God's responsibility in the whole picture? Is he responsible for just creating the universe, or does he have some obligation in maintaining it? Is it God's responsibility to battle sin? Is he responsible for bringing up man as if it were a child?

We can only judge God's perfection, as we've defined it, based on His purpose.

In the past, I probably would have argued that God's purpose is the raising of mankind. It was explained to me that the function of man in Heaven was to be a judge for angels. This agreed with my interpretation on the nature of good and evil, for man was a more fitting judge because he'd been designed to handle evil. He'd seen evil, had felt the consequences of evil, and was capable of harboring evil while still being capable of good. Satan and the other angels were incapable of this. If angels fell, they fell absolutely. Thus, I would have argued that life is the perfect training grounds for exposure to and dealing with evil, and God's purpose was to guide us as if He were training us to get through it. Since then I've discovered that these stories the ministers and other theists told me actually have little if any Biblical justificiation, but I suspect they might still be canonical.

The notion of perfection intrigues me greatly, so I'll allow a bit of time for comments (I also have classes and shit to worry about). I'll also allow different definitions of perfection, if one comes up with something better.

Posted 9/24/2006 8:58 PM - 1 view - 31 comments

recommend
recs0
give stars
votes0
share
email
sent0

Give eProps or Post a Comment

31 Comments

browse comments: next › | last »

I find this debate to be masturbatory at best, and pretentious at worst. It is misguided. Judgement of a religion cannot be based solely on its canon. One must also take into account the culture of the religion and the real-world application of the religion, in terms of how the religion applies its teachings, and how it asserts itself in today's world.

The fact is that all religious canon is laden with errors and self-contradiction. And in this debate you make the same error that fundamentalists make by adhering to a literal interpretation of a document that is unreliable in every sense of the word. It is a series of stories that were passed down verbally for hundreds of years before finally being written down. Then, over the next several hundred years, these stories were translated, re-translated, and heavily edited by numerous councils in both the Jewish and Christian faiths. There are whole books which are not included in the Bible. Just as it is fallacious for the fundamentalists to use a literal interpretation of the Bible to dictate morality and law, so is it equally fallacious for you to judge Christianity based on a literal interpretation of its canon.

This is not to say that the Bible should be rejected, or discounted in its entirety. There are lessons, things that can be inferred from the stories, which are good rules to live by. The Bible is less an instruction manual for Christianity, and more of a guidebook on living a decent life.

I reject Christianity in general, and Catholicism in particular, because of its refusal to embrace the forward march of humanity, and its rejection of science on the grounds that it is heresy, instead of accepting it and embracing it as a gift from a most benevolent God. I reject Christianity because of its heavy emphasis on guilt, because of its unyielding rules, and because it, like all other organized religion, fails to accurately categorize my beliefs. I reject organized religion because for whatever good it might achieve, it also achieves unspeakable evil.

Your argument lacks perspective and context, Chris. You can't judge a religion in the context of itself.

Posted 9/29/2006 9:20 AM by karatepunk86 - reply

"Judgement of a religion cannot be based solely on its canon. One must also take into account the culture of the religion and the real-world application of the religion, in terms of how the religion applies its teachings, and how it asserts itself in today's world."

Explain to me how any of these things assert the truth of the religion. I agree, applicability, pedagogy, and representation are important parts of a religion or denomination, but that's not the place to begin when assessing the validity of an argument. The argument is that God exists or doesn't exist. All arguments have a set of basic premises, axioms, which they hold to be true. The axioms I have set forth are what Christians in general claim, be they fundamentalist, catholic, protestant, etc.

"And in this debate you make the same error that fundamentalists make by adhering to a literal interpretation of a document that is unreliable in every sense of the word."

This debate was structured in such a fashion to completely avoid interpreting things from the Bible.

"Just as it is fallacious for the fundamentalists to use a literal interpretation of the Bible to dictate morality and law, so is it equally fallacious for you to judge Christianity based on a literal interpretation of its canon."

I fail to see the fallacy. I have outlined the argument that a given Christian would want me to accept. Turning it on itself is not only good logic, it's a basic technique of philosophy. Furthermore, this type of reasoning is scientific. Draw out the natural conclusion from a theory, test it, and see if the theoretical result is the same as the measured. If so, the theory gains support. If not, the theory must be flawed somewhere. Aether theory was refuted in this manner. I'm pretty sure it's fallacy free.

"I reject Christianity in general, and Catholicism in particular, because of its refusal to embrace the forward march of humanity, and its rejection of science on the grounds that it is heresy, instead of accepting it and embracing it as a gift from a most benevolent God. I reject Christianity because of its heavy emphasis on guilt, because of its unyielding rules, and because it, like all other organized religion, fails to accurately categorize my beliefs. I reject organized religion because for whatever good it might achieve, it also achieves unspeakable evil."

Conversely, I could refute science because it says that religion is heresy (to the scientific canon), it's heavy emphasis on the ideal, it's equally unyielding rules, and it's inability to accurately categorize my beliefs. I can do this because all of these justifications are simply a matter of perspective. Shift the perspective, and the conclusion changes as well. I'm looking for something more concrete. If I'm going to reject Christianity, I want to have cold reasons for doing so. I see those reasons existing in the consequences of the tenets of the faith.

"Your argument lacks perspective and context, Chris. You can't judge a religion in the context of itself."
Why not? I don't think there's any other way of truly testing validity.

You may see this as a masturbatory debate. Honestly, I don't give a damn. This is me assessing the validity of Christianity using something more productive than a stream of Biblical quotes. I think I've already provided some solid evidence that the Christian take on God isn't possible. Perhaps it's pretentious to say I can understand "God." At least I'm trying. But I can't call myself a Christian unless it makes sense in my head, so I need to and am going to do this.

Posted 9/29/2006 10:21 AM by mimeboy00711 - reply

I hope not to resist attacking or offending anyone, as I probably have in the past. I'd agree with Mimeboy when he says that a religion must be judged in the context of itself. Although I consider only westernized Christianity a religion, I would like to defend being a follower of Christ from karatepunk's attacks, and I usually find it grieving to have Christianity being defended by someone other than a Christian (and even someone who merely carries the Christian label but does not truly believe in Christ, as so many Westerners I have met are today). : /

"The fact is that all religious canon is laden with errors and self-contradiction."
Unless one has studied all religious cannons, this claim is perposterous and invalid by any means.
There are many who, after studying a certain religious canon (though I can only speak for the Christian canon) arrive at an uncontradictory view of the faith, once they understand the context and the documents the way they were originally meant to be understood.

"It is a series of stories that were passed down verbally for hundreds of years before finally being written down. Then, over the next several hundred years, these stories were translated, re-translated, and heavily edited by numerous councils in both the Jewish and Christian faiths."
Besides the fact that many of the texts we have compiled into "the Old Testament" are the oldest sensible written documents mankind today possesses, most of these books indeed have likely been passed down vocally through generations before being recorded. The "New Testament" texts, however, with only a few exceptions, were not.
Furthermore, NONE of the books in today's most common Bibles (such as the NIV) were "edited" (lest you include finding the best word our language possesses for a Jewish or Greek word "editing"). They are as true as possible to the Greek and Hebrew texts we have. (You can find out more about these texts from historians or scholars, or even some here on Xanga..)

The councils I assume you speak of (such as the council of Nicea) did no "editing" but only determined which documents were most valid and to be included in the canon. The ones left out were done so because of scholarly reasons, not because of issues with beliefs. If they wanted to that, there would be no virtual contradictions and all the gospels would give the same exact story. Nearly every scholar would agree that the texts chosen for the Bible were done justice to. (Again, you can find more about this from commentaries or introductions by famous Biblical scholars.)

"I reject Christianity because of its heavy emphasis on guilt, because of its unyielding rules,"
It's surprising to hear you say that, because the Christianity I know has little focus on guilt and only two unyielding "rules" (if you can call them that), which are "Love the Lord your God" and "Love your neigbor as yourself". There are no "rules" in Christianity, but only grace. We are no more perfect than anyone else. We rejoice because we're saved through Jesus, not because of anything good we have done or because we deserve it.
It's funny, because the hold that "rules" have on us is something Christ came to abolish. We are not focused on rules, because disobediance to any rule can itself condemn us - we are focused on love and on grace.

"and because it, like all other organized religion, fails to accurately categorize my beliefs."
Looking for something to categorize your beliefs is the wrong reason to be a Christian anyway.. :)

"I reject organized religion because for whatever good it might achieve, it also achieves unspeakable evil."
Though "unspeakable" may be taking it too far, that is more or less why I reject organized religion as well.

Posted 9/29/2006 8:56 PM by CormackMcKinney - reply

In my first sentance, I meant to say "I hope to resist attacking or offending anyone..." or "I hope not to attack or offend anyone..."
lol.. my mistake :]

Posted 9/29/2006 8:57 PM by CormackMcKinney - reply

Well, I understand your confusion and frustration concerning God's purpose and position with man. I don't know who told you about man in heaven being there to judge because of his experience with evil. As you pointed out, that theory has no Biblical support or foundation.

Unfortunately for us of the hip-hop spoon-feed-me-everything generation, the Bible is not one of those books where you can turn to the last page and reveal to yourself the secret ending. It was written by many different people over a very long period of time. Throughout that period of time, God reveals who He is and what His plan for man is in different ways. He spent thousands of years dealing with the Isrealites in the Old Testamnet in order to set up a picture and foundation for the New Testament. In his letters to the various churches, the apostle Paul constantly refers back to "the scriptures" (as they hadn't thought up the term "Old Testament" yet). I wish I had more time to go into this, but I unfortunately have to be brief.

You mentioned God's "responsibility" towards man earlier. God created man. His only responsibilities consist of whatever he feels like doing. Fortunately for the corrupt and fallen human race, He loves us and has a plan that he will work out in time. Why did he even create man, you ask? Let us use the example of our good old friend Adam. Adam was created, named all the animals, and then sat around being bored for a while. God couldn't help but notice, and created him a counterpart (Eve). God even said, "It is not good for man to be alone". Why did he say that? If God is so infinitely wise and omniscient, why didn't He create Adam and Eve as a couple to begin with? He was using Adam as an example. He knew that a Bible was going to be written, and He used Adam's lonliness and incompletion as a representation for His own. He wanted EVERYONE who read Genesis to understand that picture. In short, God created us to be a counterpart for him. His "responsibility" towards man is driven by His love for us. Kinda strange, huh? I don't even love the human race. How could The Almighty? His motives are driven by righteousness, a variable that can never be added to the equation of mankind. The Bible reveals that He has a plan for us that was conceived in eternity past. That plan is discussed throughout the Bible (mainly in the New Testament).

Unfortunately, I have to stop here. If you care to discuss this further, feel free to drop by my site and post something. You posted something on my sister's (valleygeek) site and that's how I found you. I am an American Soldier stationed in Baghdad, so I enjoy all of the fellowship and normal conversation I can get.

Max Pankau (the Nutella guy)

Posted 10/6/2006 12:23 PM by dapperdanman52 - reply

Let's try to stay on topic here, people. The objective is to understand perfection. Currently, our model is "performing according to one's purpose." Therefore, we need to establish God's purpose. Why does God exist? What function does He serve that the universe would be lacking otherwise? What purpose does He serve to man that man would be devoid of otherwise?

I have a link on the side that references a site, H_loves_C or something like that. He posted a while back a very long treatise on atheism. Recapping the speech would take forever, but I will highlight one very important point. He notes that in logic, there exists this notion of the onus of proof. The idea is that whoever supplies the argument is also responsible for the justification for the argument. Christianity asserts that there is a God. Therefore, it's the responsibility of the Christians to justify God's existence. So, as perfection and purpose are central to that justification, I am calling on Christians: "What is the purpose of God?"

Posted 10/6/2006 2:54 PM by mimeboy00711 - reply

I think it is plain that there are some things that are more complicated than can be understood with a mere definition.. I would say that dapperdanman's post is helpful knowledge for our understanding of God's perfection.

Posted 10/7/2006 4:59 PM by CormackMcKinney - reply

So God's purpose was to create and love man? Who is the greater being here...?

Posted 10/7/2006 5:14 PM by mimeboy00711 - reply

Can we say there is a "purpose" for the existence of God? Things that are designed have purposes, but I don't think it would be true of God because He Is.

Also (if I understand you right), it seems you equate being loved with greatness, as if we deserve it. Isn't it easier to be loved by someone than it is to love everyone? God loves us, even if we don't have all the answers, or we repeat certain mistakes, or we cause pain to others He loves, or He's angry with us, or we do not love God. That's hard for us humans to do genuinely. It also must be pretty hard to let someone with less knowledge, wisdom, and understanding than you make thier own decisions and generate thier own families simply out of love. Who is the greater being here...?

Posted 10/8/2006 5:20 PM by CormackMcKinney - reply

It seems we need to rethink our ideas on the notion of perfection then. I'm just going off of what I was given. If God has no purpose, He can't be perfect, where perfect means "acting in complete accordance with one's purpose."

You guys are taking me nowhere. Start first by answering the question. What is perfection? Is it acting in accordance with purpose? If so, what's God's purpose? If it's something else, say so. I don't want to hear more on love (I finished that topic rather well, Cormack, so I suggest you read it again), I don't want to hear about how God can make examples of us. Tell me in plain, honest english: What is perfection?

Posted 10/11/2006 9:40 AM by mimeboy00711 - reply

(I did read what you said about love, to which I replied and you deleted.)

Even the dictionary has multiple definitions for nearly every word. If we can give a description of God (which I don't think we can), the same words that we use to define ourselves as humans would take on different meanings when defining God. We can use the description of perfection (though imperfect) that we gave earlier of defining God. He acts according to His purpose. Let's say He does have a purpose - what it is we can't say, because He determines His own purposes, and they can change (when considering God working within time) and/or can be many things at one time (when considering otherwise). Either way, we can know that He is perfect. For a Christian, the perfection of God is a given - "perfection" isn't a description of God, God is a description of perfect. God IS perfect.

There are no ends to the discussion of theology, which is why I think it is futile for someone who wants to somehow put God into an conceptual box. Even Christians (as a whole) can't do that. Indeed, one of the very attributes of God (most philosophers and theologians would say, and me as well,) is that He is unknowable. But Christians would say that we can know God through Jesus (we simply cannot understand who He is as a whole because all we know is here on earth; the closest we can get to understanding God would be if He were to come to earth as a man, so Jesus is the best we are given to understanding God). Jesus said that the Father is in Him, just as He is in the Father. (But since that, too, refers to the spiritual reality we cannot argue about it because all we can accurately describe is material or conceptual.)

If you still wish to continue trying to pinpoint something spiritual I will, as I said before, drop out of this discussion. (You ask for something that can productively contribute to the conversation but I don't believe there can be any of that here if it concerns spiritual things.)

But if you'd be willing to use Jesus instead when you bring in theology (you are after all trying to understand it in our own context), then we can have something to work with.

Posted 10/11/2006 8:24 PM by CormackMcKinney - reply

Just wanted to say hi.

Posted 10/12/2006 7:43 PM by valleygeek - reply

To mimeboy,

Christian, this is the most real and pure thing that you have ever posted on my site and it touched me. I have a suggestion, throw away “Christianity” altogether and instead pursue an intimate and passionate relationship with the man Jesus Christ Himself.

Posted 10/13/2006 12:28 AM by valleygeek - reply

hey mimeboy! let me introduce myself. i am BRERJOHN. and i have MY OWN STARTING POINT TOO. my goodness. it seems we all do.

Posted 10/13/2006 12:28 PM by brerjohn_lives - reply

hey mimeboy! let me introduce myself. i am BRERJOHN. and i have MY OWN STARTING POINT TOO. my goodness. it seems we all do.

Posted 10/13/2006 12:28 PM by brerjohn_lives - reply

and it appears i am a double clicker, meaning i am lacking in patience.

Posted 10/13/2006 12:29 PM by brerjohn_lives - reply

Once again, Cormack, you undermine your own authority in explaining God. If God is unknowable, God cannot be known by any man. If God cannot be known by any man, and you are in the set of men, then you cannot know God. Therefore, you do not know God, and can provide me no advice about the nature of God or how I should interact with Him. Furthermore, the Bible can provide no insight about God to a man, because man cannot know God.

I have to stop right there, but I require further reflection on the nature of perfection. Our definition, as it stands, is extremely inadequate. God could, perchance, perform His purpose but be extremely inadequate in doing so, and still be "perfect." I don't remember anything in the Canon about God being a bumbling slob, so this obviously cannot be. It seems perfection should discuss not whether one does something or does not, but rather to what degree one does or does not do that thing. Particularly, perfection should be something along the lines of "degree of which something conforms to an ideal." Thus, if God is perfect, He is a completely ideal being. This would mean that if God loves He loves ideally, if God is just He deals ideal justice, etc...

I have to leave it at that, stuff to do, but let's try to come up with a new conception of perfection. And Cormack, you have my word, as soon as we come up with some working understanding of what perfection is, we will talk about Jesus in great detail.

Posted 10/16/2006 12:09 AM by mimeboy00711 - reply

Valleygeek: I want answers, not rhetoric.

Brerjohn: awesome. Then perhaps you can contribute. What is perfection?

Posted 10/16/2006 12:23 AM by mimeboy00711 - reply

I don't claim to know God - but I do know His Son, through whom so much is revealed. We can still give 'advice'.
I gtg to class - have a good day.

Posted 10/16/2006 1:41 PM by CormackMcKinney - reply

But if Jesus is God, then Jesus is just as unknowable. It would serve you well to remember all of the tenets of your faith before coming to a conclusion about one of them...

Posted 10/16/2006 5:44 PM by mimeboy00711 - reply

Jesus is God in the sense that His Spirit is God's Spirit. We still don't get to know God because He IS Spirit, whereas Jesus we can know because He actually lived as a human. We can know Jesus, though He is God, but not know God - because we can know people but we cannot totally know a spirit.
To say I don't remember all of the tenets of my own faith is an insult and a misunderstanding. Regardless, my faith isn't about such "tenets".

Posted 10/17/2006 1:32 PM by CormackMcKinney - reply

What Biblical evidence you have for your claims is completely interpretation. Nevertheless, we're straying from the topic again. The topic is perfection, and unless you enjoy these little side arguments, I suggest we stick to the topic in order to produce something more constructive.

Posted 10/17/2006 6:42 PM by mimeboy00711 - reply

(Of course it's enterpretation, all of our biblical evidence is enterpretation. It is in fact necessary in order to understand the truth of Jesus' parables, and the words of the prophets.)

I can't fruitfully contribute to the topic unless other roots are dealt with first, so I'm trying not to write so much.

Posted 10/19/2006 6:01 PM by CormackMcKinney - reply

Such as?

Posted 10/19/2006 10:13 PM by mimeboy00711 - reply

Well our psychological schemas that deal with spiritual things are obviously different and clash. The very things that define logic and that structure linguistics, perhaps... It's hard to pinpoint. Perhaps it is our own ontology and our understanding of knowledge that clash.
At any rate, I've already tried to word spiritual concepts, but I've already found that I can't put many ideas to words - and your apparent insistance on logic being above even the spiritual laws of the universe doesn't help..

Posted 10/20/2006 2:24 PM by CormackMcKinney - reply

browse comments: next › | last »

Choose Identity

Xanga Network

Anonymous (Sign up for free!)