If the Bible is the word of God

Nigel Gerryshit - Mon, 27 Jul 2015 18:43:35 EST oxJMfop8 No.201897

File: 1438037015710.jpg -(240556B / 234.92KB, 489x725) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.

why the fuck doesn't it have anything in it like

Genetics and how all that shit works

2. The laws of physics

3. How to build an environmentally friendly engine

4. How to cure cancer

5. How to prevent the bubonic plague?

I'm serious.

Why didn't God just include all that stuff?

>>	Henry Dartfield - Mon, 27 Jul 2015 20:41:21 EST GNPBXK2j No.201898 Reply Maybe because it's not a biology textbook, or a physics textbook, or a medical textbook, or a guide for building things. Why didn't Kant give me a weight loss program?

Cedric Cankinhen - Mon, 27 Jul 2015 20:49:29 EST fm1S8rNj No.201899 Reply

>>201897
Mmmm, I dunno, maybe because all of those things you list are inventions of mankind? It's up to use to discover the laws of physics. It's up to us to discover what cancer is, and it's up to us to discover the cure. And so on and so forth.

>How to cure cancer

>How to prevent the bubonic plague

Come on man, why didn't you just skip all this trivial bullshit and list the obvious one?

>How to overcome ALL adversity, ever, and become gods ourselves

And with this simple step forward in your little thought exercise, the answer should now be obvious to you.

Charlotte Trotshaw - Mon, 27 Jul 2015 21:35:56 EST yHZPJws1 No.201900 Reply

Probably because it doesn't contain any more Word of God than the Epic of Gilgamesh, the Book of the Dead, the Mahabharata, the Quran... you get the picture.

The Bible is a product of a branch of Semitic mythology. Which is why some of its motifs are somewhat alike those found on Egyptian stellas and Akkadian as well as Ugaritic tablets (note that they predate the Old Testament, sometimes considerably so); these mythologies probably shared a common root (sometimes striking, as is the case with some Ugaritic passages when compared to the OT) and hence the similarities.
The New Testament, on the other hand, is the result of the hellenization of Jewish sects (hell, the hellenization dispute is even in the Bible *itself*; Acts and the council of Jerusalem/incident at Antioch). It probably developed from a native Hebrew messianistic tradition (Origen cites three Hebrew Gospels, Ebionites, Hebrews and Nazarenes; all this is in contrast to the New Testament as we know it, as it was written in Greek and for Greeks), but we can't know for sure because they haven't survived.

Rebecca Trotford - Mon, 27 Jul 2015 22:58:37 EST YVFgXrPz No.201903 Reply

>>201899

>all of those things you list are inventions of mankind?

Not really, those things are simply observations, attempts to quantify and predict how things will act according to "God's plan".

I don't think the OP's premise is really that absurd. I find the bible's stark contradictions of science to be a bit absurd. So what I am getting at is the bible doesn't just go so far as to fail to mention these things, but even blatantly defies them.

>>	Charlotte Trotshaw - Mon, 27 Jul 2015 23:11:53 EST yHZPJws1 No.201904 Reply >>201903 Not that the Bible (in any of its present-day iterations) is consistent with itself.

Cedric Cankinhen - Tue, 28 Jul 2015 09:05:56 EST fm1S8rNj No.201906 Reply

>>201903
It's full of parables and allegory which hint at spiritual truths. It's only contradictory because of the different ways in which people interpret it. The reason it isn't full of "literal truths" like science, is because science isn't a literal truth. You said it yourself... It's only an imperfect, human observation.

God gives us the things to observe, and we do the observing. We humans are the ones that invented the language, and we're the ones that invented the science in order to make slipshod guesses at the future. So you see, it is blasphemous to suggest that God should have taught our laws of science to people long ago.

Charlotte Trotshaw - Tue, 28 Jul 2015 10:23:27 EST yHZPJws1 No.201907 Reply

>>201906

> It's only contradictory because of the different ways in which people interpret it.

I beg to differ.
Let's go with the very beginning, the Genesis. A reading of Genesis any closer than a glance reveals it contains not one but two creation myths, and literary analysis of source texts confirms these are two documents written by two people (or groups of people) spliced and edited together. The part from Genesis 1:1 to 2:3 is attributed to the so-called Priestly source, whereas the part from 2:4 onwards to the end of the creation myth narrative is attributed to the Jahwist source. Similarily, the floof myth contains two accounts, again Jahwist and Priestly.
The differences between the two are not only linguistic, but also factual and theological. The order of the creation week (with all its consequences) differs between the two stories. They provide two sets of genealogies that differ considerably (before anyone says it's unimportant - well, for the Hebrews it was). Then come the numerous differences in things like how many kinds, whether the flood destroys all being or all flesh (kinda important for theological interpretations), or even the term for God.

You want to discard science to make the Bible seem less factually incorrect? Whatever floats your boat. But in order to achieve passable coherence you have to discard parts of Bible itself to make other parts work. In short, from the example of Genesis *alone* we can see that the Bible is self-contradictory for the simple reason is that it is not a single narrative. Actually, Old Testament alone contains four narratives: Elohist, Jahwist, Priestly and Deuteronomical. And considering they come from different periods of time from different regions of the world whose inhabitants had (kind of) different religious beliefs and were only rather recently compiled and redacted, no wonder they contradict the shit out of themselves.

It all makes sense if we consider the fact that these are two interations of an earlier, possibly pan-semitic creation and flood myths. We know the latter from the Epic of Gilgamesh (itself a polytheistic text), and, well, Priestly is most striking in that regard, since it basically rephrases the flood part of Tablet XI of the Epic of Gilgamesh (itself a borrowing from even earlier Akkadian Atra-Hasis) pretty much point by point, in almost perfect order, down to the choice of animals released to see if the waters receded.

And before anyone asks, the New Testament is just as self-contradictory as the Old one, albeit for wholly different reasons as far as we can tell.

>>	Augustus Bemmlespear - Tue, 28 Jul 2015 10:59:28 EST 54PBc7Id No.201908 Reply OP, the bible was written by Roman elites that wanted to usher in a new style of living that opposed the Jews. No shit there's nothing godly in it.

Charlotte Trotshaw - Tue, 28 Jul 2015 11:23:57 EST yHZPJws1 No.201910 Reply

>>201908
Well, not to our best knowledge it wasn't. The actual origins of the New Testament are more complicated, because there was more than one Gospel tradition going on back then.

Actually, the cultural affinity of the currently surviving biblical tradition is one of the few things that we can rather reliably infer with the help of the Bible itself. From what is known, the isue of inclusiveness of the Christian faith (and with it, the question of whether non-Jews should be allowed to practice and the question of upholding the Mosaic law) was kind of hot during the early days of Christianity, spurring the Incident at Antioch and was only partially mended during the Council of Jerusalem.

Besides, the Romans weren't opposed to the Second Temple tradition of Judaism *at all*, well, until shit hit the fan. For quite some time, the priestly castes of the Second Temple were privileged under Imperial rule. It makes sense; let them worship their shit and keep their hierarchy, so long as they pay taxes, keep the area under Imperial sovereign and don't rebel.
But then the splintering of the Jewish sects happened and coincided with the power struggle of the Herodian, Hasmonean and other dynasties, combined with the occasional Parthian raid. One of the main driving factors of the First Jewish-Roman War were religious tensions between Greeks and Jews that stemmed not as much from them being Greeks and Jews that lived side by side by itself, but by the growing influence of Hellenistic Judaism (which arose way before Romans came to Judea), which threatened to shake the settled hierarchy a bit - making the revolt less of an emancipatory struggle and more of a reactionary one.

Fuck Pottingwater - Tue, 28 Jul 2015 13:43:45 EST Rxhp79YO No.201912 Reply

Because us having knowledge of any of those things is irrelevant to the plan of salvation God has for us. We're told that he is going to create the New Jerusalem, literally heaven on earth. Why would he tell us how to cure cancer or the bubonic plague when he's going to stop those things from even existing?

Charlotte Trotshaw - Tue, 28 Jul 2015 15:56:26 EST yHZPJws1 No.201914 Reply

>>201912

>the plan of salvation God has for us

Ok.

>create a place full of misery inhabited by imperfect beings
>let the inhabitants deal with that misery, judge them harshly if they do something you don't like
>specifically fuck all descendants of the people who made the first mistake that angered you
>flash flood the place to oblivion if it gets too bad, killing almost everyone in the process
>send some cattle herders in the middle east some convoluted message regarding the divine plan that will result in living in a place not as shitty as the one you created
>include an inordanetely large amounts of instructions regarding praising yourself, enslaving your neighbours and selling your daughters into slavery
>send a guy to die on the cross to appease yourself once you get fed up with lack of progress, have him spout some more messages so unclear that people will kill each other in wars waged against different interpretations of this messages
>claim that sending that guy made them somehow indebted to you
>apparently be content with hordes of clergy robbing people of their material wealth with the promise of immaterial reward for millenia
>absolutely ignore anything that happens anywhere that does not fall into the Judeo-Christian sphere of influence

Good plan? Great plan.

In all fairness... I simply cannot understand the excuses people present when confronted with the glaringly abhorrent morality of the Judeo-Christian God. When I first read the Bible, the Book of Job struck me especially hard. What fucking kind of an ethical code does it contain? What kind of an asshole you have to be to act like that, and what kind of asshole you have to be to accept this simply because it supposedly came from God? Nothing says "benevolence" like answering the question of "Why do righteous suffer?" with "to test your righteousness for the glory of God". This is the kind of morality that would make Hitler blush.

Fuck Pottingwater - Tue, 28 Jul 2015 16:38:47 EST Rxhp79YO No.201915 Reply

>>201914
Job contains the same ethical code as the rest of the Bible does. Job is not saved by his good works or his righteous life, he is saved by his repentance before God. It is not about testing righteousness, it is about accepting suffering. Suffering is part of our life as a result of our sinful nature (imperfect beings as you said). Faith in Christ gives us consolation from that suffering and will ultimately lead to the end of it. Job is not the one being tested, Satan is, and he is defeated.

Charlotte Trotshaw - Tue, 28 Jul 2015 17:08:05 EST yHZPJws1 No.201916 Reply

>>201915

>Job contains the same ethical code as the rest of the Bible does.

It does, and that's the fucking problem, because the Bible contains ethical code developed in late Bronze Age that would pass as a genocide textbook today.
Now, it's not that the Bible is unique in this aspect, many religions have holy books full of ethical justifications of murderous advancements of cultural and religious hegemony (well, most organized religions do), but still.

>Job is not saved by his good works or his righteous life, he is saved by his repentance before God.

Repentance for WHAT? What the fuck did he do? Nothing. He did nothing. The whole foundation of the story rests on the fact that he was righteous and God thought him so, yet he suffered.
Oh, I know what he did. He existed, because human beings are sinful by nature. And that somehow justifies the evil in the world. Problem solved.

>It is not about testing righteousness, it is about accepting suffering. Suffering is part of our life as a result of our sinful nature (imperfect beings as you said).

If it's God that made us and the world we live in, then it's God who's ultimately responsible for our condition. If God were omnipotent, then he could've made Man not sinful. If God could make Man so that Man would not suffer but chose not to, then it is not a benevolent God, but a malevolent one.
And before you give me the free will theodicy, the mysterious ways argument or lay out the divine command theory to justify that - the first one is plain wrong from a logical standpoint, the second one is so idiotic it's not even wrong, and the last one is criminally fucked up.

>Faith in Christ gives us consolation from that suffering and will ultimately lead to the end of it.

You know, I for one find would find no consolation in believing that I am the product of a plan that involves me (or anyone else for that matter) suffering because of how I was made. Nor would I find consolation in believing that I'm sinful by nature and it's my fault. I would not find consolation in forcing myself to repent before the being that made me sinful to avert its wrath and the suffering it incurs.
In fact, I'm perpetually, consistently stupefied at how can anyone find consolation in professing such a repressive, punishing, self-denigrating beliefs.

>Job is not the one being tested, Satan is, and he is defeated.

Yeah, defeated in a bet made to see if a guy forfeits his blind belief when subjected to excruciating suffering for no reason. Job is none more than dice in God's hand, and that's somehow OK and we should all be glad for being dice in God's hand so long as God is winning. Yeah.
That's absolutely fucked up.

Charlotte Trotshaw - Tue, 28 Jul 2015 17:26:06 EST yHZPJws1 No.201918 Reply

>>201915
Also, I like how earlier in the thread you said that "it is blasphemous to suggest that God should have taught our laws of science to people long ago". BLASPHEMOUS. That's the word you used. You basically entered a discussion on a philosophy board and told someone that their argument is invalid because it is *blasphemous*.

Smiling Buddha with a chicken basket, that's fucking Inquisition-style rhetoric here. What you're doing is not philosophical argumentation, it's not even apologetics, it's laying down faith so unquestioned it needs not be argued; all that is required is for you to deem anything contrary blasphemy. This is Hanbali Jurisprudence level of persuasive argumentation. Jesus Fuck.

Jenny Niggergold - Tue, 28 Jul 2015 20:20:23 EST fm1S8rNj No.201919 Reply

>>201916

>because human beings are sinful by nature.

Well, um... yeah. I wouldn't believe it either if I hadn't seen it myself. Anyone who isn't braindead has sinful cravings that must be repressed if they are to achieve salvation. You. Me. Nigel Gerryshit, over there. Everyone.

>Also, I like how earlier in the thread you said that "it is blasphemous to suggest that God should have taught our laws of science to people long ago"

That was me that said that, not the guy you're replying to. Anyway, I'm going to calmly suggest that you try to ignore your hatred for religion for a minute, and just think about what's being proposed here. For one thing, any attempt to abstract the Truth of the entire universe in such a way that fits into our brains (through so-called "physical laws" for instance) invariably leads to an imperfect representation! So why then would God give us things like physical laws? To mislead us? Because that's what would happen, you know. If people simply believed that the laws of physics, though imperfect by nature, came directly from God, then that would be it. We would be DONE with all science and physics forever, because God just laid bare the secrets of the universe, therefore there's no need to seek out a more perfect explanation. That's some absurd logic right there, my friend.

Archie Hiddlewell - Tue, 28 Jul 2015 21:21:31 EST G1+73k58 No.201920 Reply

>>201916
I agree with how brutally absurd the book of job is. However it's got to be the single most honest experience of faith and karma ever rendered into religious thought. That's faith in anything. When you go through the valleys in life you will invitably fill like job who does actually get angry and bitter with God. That's actually supposed to be a sign of his faith for if job didn't have that faith he wouldn't be questioning why bad things were happening in the first place if not for his belief.
That's the kind of a allegory of the devil and God. In a weird way job is about god's faith in humanity, and faith in humanity in general, and is meant to explain the perspective of god's belief in you. Which is about the spiritual place that people reach when faith is tested, meaning job's faith wasn't unphased or unaffected no it was tested meaning it felt like it was breaking.
This is a perspective meant to make sense of that point in life that people reach. It relates to an individuals faith in God(job), through that justice, humanity(the devil and God) someone's faith in you, and in a full circle way your faith in yourself.

Cyril Niggershit - Tue, 28 Jul 2015 21:41:22 EST yHZPJws1 No.201921 Reply

>>201919

>Well, um... yeah. I wouldn't believe it either if I hadn't seen it myself. Anyone who isn't braindead has sinful cravings that must be repressed if they are to achieve salvation. You. Me. Nigel Gerryshit, over there. Everyone.

Well first thing's first - it might surprise you, but I don't believe that there is such a thing as "sin". Sin is usually defined as violating the will of God. I don't believe in God. I see no reason to acknowledge the existence of a God for the sake of any argument (unless proven wrong on the premise, however unlikely that would be).

>That was me that said that, not the guy you're replying to.

Genuinely sorry for the mix-up. I did notice the different names, but for some reason I assumed that it was a case of dynamic IP or something.

> Anyway, I'm going to calmly suggest that you try to ignore your hatred for religion for a minute, and just think about what's being proposed here.

I suggest you hold your assertions and contemplate that I might not hate religion per se, but the notion of morality proposed by most religions. Besides being accused of hatefulness by a person who invokes blasphemy in his arguments smells faintly of hypocrisy. But enough about that.

>For one thing, any attempt to abstract the Truth of the entire universe in such a way that fits into our brains (through so-called "physical laws" for instance) invariably leads to an imperfect representation!

It'd be easier if you started a discussion regarding epistemology in terms of epistemology, not theology. You're poisoning the well by defining knowledge in theological terms, even though they are not applicable to, say, the scientific method.
And in doing so, you're asserting a couple of things that might not even be true - for instance, there actually being a truth to the universe.

Even supposing there is some absolute underlying value system to the universe that could be abstracted (it might not be the case), in come the liar paradox and Godel's incompleteness theorems to ruin our day. If such universe were complete - and it does seem to be, at the first glance - then it would not be consistent - and considering the inordinate amount of paradoxes and problems in logic, it, too, seems to be the case. Hence, there exist statements that are true but not provable, not because of the incapacity of the human beings to prove them, but because of the very structure of logic that enables the very existence of these truths. Inductive reasoning via empirical observation is *inherently* uncertain, not just because of human failings (though they certainly don't help). Since not everyone is OK with extreme sollipsism, science come around as the mechanism of bridging this uncertainty with intersubjective verifiability and coherent reasoning to arrive at tentatively accepted theories that give rise to better understanding of what is given, thus providing a set of truths that, albeit are tentatively accepted and undergo corrections or are superseded, demonstrably improves both in terms of accuracy of representation and certainty over time. That would be the short story.

Oh, and I find your not-so-subtle ways of denigrating science ("so-called physical laws", "slipshod guesses") cute. Through it, I can catch a glimpse of someone who doesn't know what science is and how it works. Possibly willful denial, as, I sense a strong aversion to uncertainty about you. Common ways of knowing the natural world do not grant absolute certainty, this much is true (not that the uncommon will, but still). For someone like you, so entrenched in the realm of absolute truths and definitive values, it must be infuriating.

>So why then would God give us things like physical laws? To mislead us? Because that's what would happen, you know. If people simply believed that the laws of physics, though imperfect by nature, came directly from God, then that would be it. We would be DONE with all science and physics forever, because God just laid bare the secrets of the universe, therefore there's no need to seek out a more perfect explanation. That's some absurd logic right there, my friend.

Oh boy, so that's what the lead-up was for.
OK, so let's spare ourselves the formalities and reduce the whole thing ad absurdum right away. God created the universe and the man. Man is imperfect, his knowledge and conceptions as well. Man suffers because of these imperfections, because of his sinfulness and because of his ignorance. God has some plan to alleviate that but he won't tell straight away and sends parables which confuse us due to our imperfect nature.

OP's question in these terms is the following: why does God not alleviate the imperfections of Man's nature through his revelations (in other words, why won't he give us what we lack, in this case, knowledge)?
To which I am going to add mine: why would God create an imperfect Man, knowing it would bring suffering, in the first place (in other words, why were we made lacking)?

Cyril Niggershit - Tue, 28 Jul 2015 22:20:55 EST yHZPJws1 No.201923 Reply

>>201920

>I agree with how brutally absurd the book of job is.

I'm glad we agree on that one, at the very least.

>However it's got to be the single most honest experience of faith and karma ever rendered into religious thought.

That, too, I would consider true. It's put so bluntly noone can argue it's dishonest.

>That's faith in anything. When you go through the valleys in life you will invitably fill like job who does actually get angry and bitter with God.

Well, I've been through some tough shit in life. I've been bitter and angry. Still am, in some aspects. Figures. Am I bitter and angry with God? No. Why? Because I don't believe in God.

>That's actually supposed to be a sign of his faith for if job didn't have that faith he wouldn't be questioning why bad things were happening in the first place if not for his belief.

True, but I dare to question the vailidity of the message. Job reasons that since God is just and he's suffering terrible misfortune, then he made something terribly wrong. Sadly, before Job can actually complete his musings, Elihu butts in with his stark interpretation of the divine command theory. "There is no profit in trying to please God", indeed.

>That's the kind of a allegory of the devil and God. In a weird way job is about god's faith in humanity, and faith in humanity in general, and is meant to explain the perspective of god's belief in you.

Well, considering Elihu's part and the impecations sent upon Job for the line he delivered before Elihu's butting in, it does not seem to be the case. The reason for the story was to advance theodicy, plain and simple.

>Which is about the spiritual place that people reach when faith is tested, meaning job's faith wasn't unphased or unaffected no it was tested meaning it felt like it was breaking.

Galileo once said "I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who would endow us with sense, reason and intellect would intend us to forgo their use". Job took the premises of his faith and reasoned based on them. One could argue that he reasoned correctly, even innovatively, considering the time of composition of the book, raising questions about the morality of the actions of the supposedly just God ("Hast thou eyes of flesh? or seest thou as man seeth?" - damn, I like citing KJV at times, it has this feeling of gravitas to it). Then Elihu butts in and shits on his parade, basically telling Job that God is not to be liked or reasoned about by folks like Job and his neighbours, and that he just shut up to repent, and that thinking alone added rebellion to his sins. A pleasant fellow, that one.

>This is a perspective meant to make sense of that point in life that people reach. It relates to an individuals faith in God(job), through that justice, humanity(the devil and God) someone's faith in you, and in a full circle way your faith in yourself.

Well, consider this. Job reasons that if God is just and he suffers, then he did something bad. Let's imagine for a moment that no booming impecations interrupted his monologue, and he continues his reasoning. One can isolate the premises from this statement: 1. God Exists 2. God is Just, the current condition is suffering. Given the truth of the premises 1 and 2, suffering should not be without reason. Neither Job nor his neighbors can pinpoint any fault at Job's part. This adds a third premise" Job is not guilty. All three assumptions being true cannot conceivably coexist within the context of a benevolent God, so we have to throw something out. The possible iterations (that matter) are thus:

God made Job suffer because he is guilty (premises 1 and 2 true)
God made Job suffer with no reason at all (premises 1 and 3 true)
Job's suffering is not divine in nature (premise 3 true, 1 and 2 either ignored or discarded)

As far as theological justifications go:

is used by some christian theologies as theodicy; people are by their nature sinful and suffer because of that, although that does raise the question of why would God make us so.
is justified as part of divine command theory. It's not that God is Just, Just is God; whatever God does, no matter how much of a murderous clownfuck lunacy it might appear to be for the average observer, is automatically justified by virtue of divine command. I don't think I need to spell out the moral implications of that.
contradicts the earlier part of the narrative, which spells God's involvement; if transplanted out of the example onto the real world, it's basically implicit atheism

The Book of Job, especially through the words of Elihu, advances 2., that is, the divine command theory (at least, a variation of it). The moral of the story is basically to "shut up and repent" or something worse than your current suffering may follow.

Eliza Blizzlechark - Tue, 28 Jul 2015 22:48:52 EST YVFgXrPz No.201924 Reply

>>201919
Dude you keep calling human's imperfect, as compared to god which you declare is perfect. That just raises so many damn questions.
So for instance is god is perfect, and omnipotent, as often said, why would he put humans in the garden of eden, then tell them not to eat the fruit?
This makes no sense, seeing as he is omnipotent he already knows Satan/Lucifer/the snake will deceive them. He already knows his "imperfect" creation will be corruptable, and his subsequent punishment is nothing short of sadistic.
However let's say that he was not aware of his creation in that sense, their corruptable nature, then he is not omnipotent, and also is not perfect. Likewise the "Word of God" aka the bible is imperfect in that it is not true, it is not correct.
Likewise you keep saying that our understanding of natural law is imperfect, that we can't possibly understand perfect divinity and such (paraphrasing), and this is why it is not found in the bible. Yet why weren't we created such that we could understand such things? Why were we created such that we could question his word, doubt his laws, when it is so critical we praise him and follow his laws? This to any sane mind would seem rather imperfect to me.
So there are 2 options here. Either he created us imperfectly because he himself is imperfect, or is sadistic because he wants to constantly test us against things we can barely control, yet he can, and for what? He could create uptopia, if he is perfect, and save every soul, yet chooses not to for his silly little game of who suffers in fire for eternity and who doesn't. That is incredibly fucked up, no matter how it is spun.

Jenny Niggergold - Tue, 28 Jul 2015 23:12:05 EST fm1S8rNj No.201925 Reply

>>201921

>You're poisoning the well by defining knowledge in theological terms, even though they are not applicable to, say, the scientific method.

Pay close attention. It was OP who asked why God didn't just give us the laws of physics. I wasn't the one trying to mix theology and science, I was merely responding to this odd notion. It would be like asking why didn't God give us the English language (as long as we're talking about mixing up human concepts here)

>you're asserting a couple of things that might not even be true - for instance, there actually being a truth to the universe.

There is at least one truth to the universe. Can you guess what it is?

>I can catch a glimpse of someone who doesn't know what science is and how it works.

I'm not trying to denigrate science. I think science is our most brilliant invention, yet. Science is one of the best tools we've ever made, because we use it to guide ourselves in pursuit of the truth of the universe. I chose a career that directly impacts science for this very reason. But science will always only be human. No matter how hard we squint at the data, science isn't the truth.

>sends parables which confuse us

Confuses some, not all. Then again, you have to admit that mother nature Herself often confuses many people. You have this strange habit of lumping everyone on earth under the same frame of mind.

>To which I am going to add mine: why would God create an imperfect Man,

Very well then allow me to counter with yet a third question: Why would he not?

>why were we made lacking?

Because that's where the chips fell. Why did humans evolve past the rodent stage in the first place? Why didn't cockroaches develop the brainpower to land on the moon? Why didn't the Dodo escape extinction? Why didn't the bubonic plague wipe out every last one of us? What a crap disease... so lacking...

Why was literally every thing in the world made lacking?

And for that matter, what is this *lacking* you speak of?

What if everything is actually functioning as it should, and "lacking" is a concept which only exists in the imperfect minds of humans?

If the world was perfect, then we wouldn't have learnt anything. We wouldn't have evolved the intelligence to abstract the truth so well. We wouldn't even be here. Existence of the universe itself implies imperfection. Verily.

Eliza Blizzlechark - Wed, 29 Jul 2015 00:32:58 EST YVFgXrPz No.201926 Reply

>>201925

>It was OP who asked why God didn't just give us the laws of physics
> I wasn't the one trying to mix theology and science, I was merely responding to this odd notion.

I think this would be fine and dandy, if the bible didn't directly contradict scientific observation. Which brings me to my next point:

>evolve/evolution

Which is what you said. Evolution stands in direct contrast to the bible, which says that man was created directly by god. Evolution claims main was created by time, chance, mutation, gene duplication and gene disfunction/novel function. As in, totally from physical interaction of chemicals, not from mysterious conscious wills that are beyond us. Evolution claims our genesis is the very fabric of the universe, creative design type theories claim it is an intelligence or conscious will beyond us. They stand in opposition.

>There is at least one truth to the universe. Can you guess what it is?

No one can, including the uneducated desert nomads of 1000s of years ago, the tribesmen who wrote any doctrine any modern man ascribes to. Perhaps the scientists of the future may be able to, but I doubt the spiritualists will ever move past pure conjecture.

Jenny Niggergold - Wed, 29 Jul 2015 01:06:58 EST fm1S8rNj No.201929 Reply

>>201924

>why would he put humans in the garden of eden, then tell them not to eat the fruit?

The allegorical nature of the bible graphically conveys the lesson at hand, and it's up to us to determine how to interpret it. In this case, the garden is our world, and the fruit embodies forbidden knowledge. You know... that fabled knowledge that could trigger our own demise. The bible was written by men who, having no modern scientific knowledge themselves, were just as divinely inspired as the greatest scientists of recent times. This is the reason the bible is one of the most successful works of art in human history.

>Likewise the "Word of God" aka the bible is imperfect in that it is not true, it is not correct.

The word of god is allegorical in nature. How we interpret it is up to us.

>This to any sane mind would seem rather imperfect to me.

As I've said, existence itself necessitates imperfection. Hot needs cold, wet needs dry, happy needs sad, pleasure needs pain, lacking needs comfort, near needs far, good needs bad. Without knowing imperfections, we would have no scale, no ruler, and no frame of reference from which to look out and observe the truth! We would have no frame of reference on which to base reality. What's more, without life's little contradictions, life wouldn't have evolved for want of anything. Thermodynamics wouldn't exist, and matter, and space, and time wouldn't exist. There would be nothing. And it would be perfect. But you know that at least your thoughts exist, and that implies something.

>>201926

>Evolution stands in direct contrast to the bible, which says that man was created directly by god.

That all depends on how you interpret the bible, and how you interpret your senses.

>pure conjecture
>nobody exists, not even me

Yeah, that is out there.

>>	Jarvis Hevingbat - Wed, 29 Jul 2015 02:46:56 EST oxJMfop8 No.201931 Reply I think the Book of Job is the best and most meaningful book of the Old Testament by far. In my opinion. From the ones that I have read. But I read it as an allegory, and don't take it literally.

Cyril Niggershit - Wed, 29 Jul 2015 03:22:59 EST yHZPJws1 No.201932 Reply

1438154579009.jpg -(187912B / 183.51KB, 897x673) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.

>>201925

>It would be like asking why didn't God give us the English language (as long as we're talking about mixing up human concepts here)

No it would be not.

>There is at least one truth to the universe. Can you guess what it is?

I wouldn't exacvtly call it truth, champ.

>I chose a career that directly impacts science for this very reason.

Out of pure curiosity, what would that be?

>But science will always only be human. No matter how hard we squint at the data, science isn't the truth.

As opposed to what, religion? Come on. Many currently standing scientific theories contradict the pronciples of Christianity. It's irreconcilable.

>Confuses some, not all. Then again, you have to admit that mother nature Herself often confuses many people. You have this strange habit of lumping everyone on earth under the same frame of mind.

You have the strange habit of seeing everything as if it revolved around you. I see the big picture. The many Christian factions splintering over the course of history, fighting with each other, vying to be the one to have a row of souls in heaven. If there's truth to the Bible, then it would mean that most Christians "don't get it" - no matter what the truth actually was, if only due to the splintering of the Christian realm. Pretty much pic related. If that doesn't count as "confused", I don't know anymore.

>Very well then allow me to counter with yet a third question: Why would he not?

Oh, for a variety of reasons. Firstly, the moral ones: God is supposed to be benevlent, and creating an imperfect Man brings Man suffering, which is hardly fucking benevolent.
Then comes the ontological question of why would a perfect being need anything in the first place. In many religious philosophies there is a connection between not-wanting (or, lack of desire) and divinty; based on the reasoning that the divine is complete in itself and requires nothing further. The very act of creation would degrade Divinity, because the required driving impulse behind it consititutes a need which is unfit for a divine being.

>Why did humans evolve past the rodent stage in the first place? Why didn't cockroaches develop the brainpower to land on the moon? Why didn't the Dodo escape extinction? Why didn't the bubonic plague wipe out every last one of us? What a crap disease... so lacking...

Don't shoot the messenger; *I*, personally, don't espouse human exceptionalism, but Christianity does, so I have to adjust my questions with that in mind.

As to respond to your counterbite itself; well, because we filled out evolutionary niches rather than evolve with some other, let's say, "goal" in mind.

>And for that matter, what is this *lacking* you speak of?

Can't you connect the dots? If God were omnipotent and omnibenevolent, then it couldn't have been that he created beings that suffer becaue of their condition, and humans do (just go to any warzone if you doubt me on that). "Lacking" here means "lacking" that which is necessary to prevent suffering.

>If the world was perfect, then we wouldn't have learnt anything. We wouldn't have evolved the intelligence to abstract the truth so well. We wouldn't even be here. Existence of the universe itself implies imperfection. Verily.

That's a pretty bold projection for someone who called science a slipshod guess, huh. Anyways, that's not precisely true; the existence of *our* universe implies imperfection. Remember the part about God being omnipotent? Work up your imagination. Truly omnipotent. They guy can bend logic to his will. If he wanted to make a perfect world that would not have forbade discovery and improvement (as you've pointed out, the current notions of absolute perfection would seem to imply such a limitaiton), he could. If he wanted to bring free will and ultimate good to congruence, thus preserving freedom while ending all evil, he could. But he did not.

Martin Sirrywill - Wed, 29 Jul 2015 03:34:37 EST gHvCsT5H No.201933 Reply

>>201923
Didn't Jung reason a justification for job?

I look at job as job is not yet guilty or innocent because he is being tested and the bet is based on god's premise that he's innocent and the devil'so argument that job wouldn't be righteous if he didn't have it nice.
And I think that's the problem that unbeknownst to any one in the world somebody had rigged the game and are watching job as if his actions determine something about the faith itself.

Job thinks about suffering but he's made to suffer to not only test his faith to prove something. Which besides contradicting the just world with suffering being applied regardless of our deeds, contradicts the idea that faith alone is enough for even God and satan. They agree to a scientific experiment with hypothesis each with job as the guinea pig, to test what human nature is.

Interestingly as well is that both satan and God have reasoned what job will do based off there faith in job. Just as job reasons what God would do based off his faith, because of god's reasoning and testing to prove what he knew. Job a man of high faith is basically brought to reason through god's trial which is because of God having a tough argument.
Job as if meeting him on the other side comes to reason through faith.

It seems like job has to suffer because of reason, job had to suffer because of faith, or job had to suffer because he is job.

Putting the last to together job is a man of faith so job is an example of faith to God. So faith is included in job had to suffer because job is job.

Therefore the logical moral and answer seems to be job suffered because he existed and why would a just God allow suffering because he reasoned

Martin Sirrywill - Wed, 29 Jul 2015 04:12:59 EST gHvCsT5H No.201934 Reply

>>201933

The most unsettling thing to me about job is it seems to be about not taking things for granted and uncertainy not being a reason for loss of faith, but job is going through this because god and satan are gambling which means taking some for granted so much you're willing to bet to show how certain you are about it.

What sticks in the craw so much about this I think isn't just that Job loses so much which honestly is what should be what we take away, if we were to have compassion.
But that God is the exact opposite of virtue and that we and job are essentially supposed to have faith in what is toying with us.

It's important to recognize job is angry with God one, but two that to have faith with something that plays with the faith you have in it, that wounds the faith you have in it through opposition to what that faith holds, is because that thing is betting on you to have faith because it has faith in you.

God has acted in a way that is un virtuous because he has bet on virtue to win. Why did this argument necessitate that why didn't God just know why did there have to be suffering are more questions.

But God has faith in job, and the devil does not. Why it even mattered what the devil thought why couldn't job lead a happy life, because of this is unsettling why did God think it was okay to do this according to God and the faith in him, which is never settled.

Cyril Niggershit - Wed, 29 Jul 2015 07:14:51 EST yHZPJws1 No.201935 Reply

>>201933

>Didn't Jung reason a justification for job?

If you consider calling the Book of Job "pure poison" and arguing for the duality of divine morality (that is, that God has an evil side to accompany the good side) to be "justification", then yes, he did.

>I look at job as job is not yet guilty or innocent because he is being tested and the bet is based on god's premise that he's innocent and the devil'so argument that job wouldn't be righteous if he didn't have it nice.

There are several issues here, one more fucked up than the other.
First: WHY test Job? He's doing good, is not (or not yet) guilty of anything, and genuinely tries to follow the morality he holds to be true and just. What does this whole, rather painful, testing accomplish?
Second: Again, WHY yest Job? God is fucking omniscient. At least according to Christian theology; the God of the Jahwist source is rather clearly *not* omniscient, but that's beside the point. Eitherwats, an omniscient God should know how the test will turn out, which makes the premise doubly ridiculous. And doubles the unnecessariness of the suffering involved.

>But that God is the exact opposite of virtue and that we and job are essentially supposed to have faith in what is toying with us.

This is as true as it is fucked up.

>It's important to recognize job is angry with God one, but two that to have faith with something that plays with the faith you have in it, that wounds the faith you have in it through opposition to what that faith holds, is because that thing is betting on you to have faith because it has faith in you.

This is the kind of thinking that makes people stay with criminally abusive spouses.

>God has acted in a way that is un virtuous because he has bet on virtue to win.

He *HAS* to? Wasn't he omnipotent? So omnipotent that Satan actually *HAD* to ask him before royally fucking Job?

>But God has faith in job, and the devil does not. Why it even mattered what the devil thought why couldn't job lead a happy life, because of this is unsettling why did God think it was okay to do this according to God and the faith in him, which is never settled.

After we bare that sentence from theology and story elements, what remains is the Problem of Evil, which in truth is the central philosophical issue of the Book of Job. And "never settled"? Might be, if we'd consider settling it within Judeo-Christian theoogy, and I've yet to see viable theodicy. The two rather obvious ways of resolving that are either that God is not perfectly just (which is not the kind of statements that theologians would like) or that God does not exist (which is doubly so). Both deal swiftly with the problem, no strings attached.

The issue secondary to the Problem of Evil (not contained in the Book of Job, but follows from the consideration of its premises) is Euthyphro dilemma. For monothestic religions it would be rendered like this " Is what is morally good commanded by God because it is morally good, or is it morally good because it is commanded by God?". If we assume divine benevolence in Job and refuse to tackle the Problem of Evil, then what follows is incompatibility of divine and earthly morality that raises the question of what *is* good and what *is not*. I'll quote Russell on that "The point I am concerned with is that, if you are quite sure there is a difference between right and wrong, then you are then in this situation: is that difference due to God's fiat or is it not? If it is due to God's fiat, then for God himself there is no difference between right and wrong, and it is no longer a significant statement to say that God is good." With it, Russell presents the first fork of Euthyphro Dilemma - divine command theory (which I mentioned), and its shortcomings. The second fork is to consider that the difference between right and wrong is *not* by God's fiat. The problem with that, in turn, is that it makes God subject to an absolute morality that is sourced somewhere else. This robs God of omnipotence by definition (he cannot influence morality) and, if we diverged on the ontological sources of divine morality while upholding the premise, it'd end with infinite regress of moral sources obeying each other in orther to remain meaningful. Turtles all the way down.

The actual solution to the Euthyphro Dilemma is the rejection of both premises: that God is the source of morality and/or that there exists an objective morality. You guessed it, it leads to moral relativism.

Cyril Niggershit - Wed, 29 Jul 2015 07:34:06 EST yHZPJws1 No.201936 Reply

>>201933

>It seems like job has to suffer because of reason, job had to suffer because of faith, or job had to suffer because he is job.

And that would be the free will theodicy, kind of. Job, in order to be himself, has to possess free will and reason, and it is this free will and reason (the two can be understood as one fo the purposes of free will theodicy) that are the cause of his suffering. This rests on the premise that free will is the ability to choose between right and wrong, and hence, the source of evil.
To reduce the free will theodicy to the absurd: is there free will in heaven? If yes, then apparently God was in capacity to reconcile free will with evil (somehow), but raises the question of what purpose does eathly evil hold (thus reverts back to the Problem of Evil; ie. it's ultimately circular). If no, then it raises the question of what purpose does free will hold.

Cyril Niggershit - Wed, 29 Jul 2015 11:54:46 EST yHZPJws1 No.201939 Reply

Also, I'll add some oil to the fire by reminding y'all that Exodus exists, and contains the juicy part where the pharaoh actually intended to let the Jews go in peace... until God hardened his heart. Several times. And punished the pharaoh, his troops, and random inhabitants of the realm that had fuck-all to do with this whole ordeal for evil he himself has provoked. That's pretty much double predestination, and nothing says "benevolent God" like creating beings whose sole purpose is to commit evil and suffer. Yay.

Fanny Billerdale - Wed, 29 Jul 2015 14:05:58 EST Rxhp79YO No.201940 Reply

1438193158446.jpg -(339156B / 331.21KB, 1301x1080) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.

>>201918
When did I say that? I've only made two posts in this thread up until now.

>>201916

>defeated in a bet

It's not a bet. There is never any doubt that Job will reach salvation in the end. Its an explanation of the suffering in the world: the existence of sin and the existence of Satan.

>You know, I for one find would find no consolation in believing

Indeed. I imagine you're not a Christian then.

>because human beings are sinful by nature

You're spot on there, if you understand that then you should be able to understand why we suffer. My guess is you don't believe humans are sinful by nature though. Which makes me wonder how you explain all the evil in the world?

>If God were omnipotent, then he could've made Man not sinful

He is in the process of doing this. Creation wasn't a one time event, it continues to happen now. We will attain a perfect sinless state eventually.

>ethical code developed in late Bronze Age

Truth, morality , ethics don't vary with time and place. What was true then is still true now.

Cyril Niggershit - Wed, 29 Jul 2015 16:05:56 EST yHZPJws1 No.201944 Reply

>>201940

>When did I say that? I've only made two posts in this thread up until now.

That was a mix up, the other poster clarified this.

>It's not a bet. There is never any doubt that Job will reach salvation in the end.

One wonders why the whole ordeal was necessary, then.

>Its an explanation of the suffering in the world: the existence of sin and the existence of Satan.

And exactly how does it explain the issue?

>Indeed. I imagine you're not a Christian then.

Well, no shit.

>You're spot on there, if you understand that then you should be able to understand why we suffer.

Well, no. I cannot, for the love of fuck, understand the place suffering has when framed within any Christian theology I'm familiar with, and I've been exposed to quite a few. With regards to this discussion, I specifically cannot understand why a supposedly benevolent God would create beings that are doomed to suffering by virtue of their sinful nature. Such a God would not be benevolent, which is the core tenet of all Christian theologies.

>My guess is you don't believe humans are sinful by nature though.

Considering I said, in rather plain words, that I maintain that there is no such thing as *sin*, this should come off as no surprise.

>Which makes me wonder how you explain all the evil in the world?

That'd warrant a very complicated, multi-layered answer. I'll try to compress it, if I do so beyond the point at which it loses intelligibility, let me know. I'll do so once I deal with what you wrote.

>He is in the process of doing this. Creation wasn't a one time event, it continues to happen now. We will attain a perfect sinless state eventually.

This is all fine and dandy, except it makes not one shred of sense. Again, you fail to answer the ultimate question: why all of this? Why make it a process that involves apparently needless suffering rather than go straight away to the intended goal?

>Truth, morality , ethics don't vary with time and place. What was true then is still true now.

You dun goof'd, and you dun goof'd hard.

I'll kill two birds with one stone and explain both my take on evil and why you're wrong with that in one go.
Firstly, morality is not objective and absolute, whether it supposedly comes from God or not. Not only because absolute, objective morality raises logical concerns (which you'd know if you read my earlier diatribe regarding the Euthyphro Dilemma), but also because historical records clearly demonstrate that various people held different notions on what is good and bad, depending on where they existed and when. Hell, even the comon canons of the Bible itself present inconsistent morality (as expected of the compiled work of many people), as evident through conflicting moral instructions given in them, and that's not even touching what is commonly considered apocryphal. Quick example: turn the other cheek or sell purse and scrip to get a sword? Of course, this is usually shrugged off by saying that these are all metaphorical statements and interpretations differ, which might have been possible to stomach if not for the fact that the differences in interpretations stem from different notions on morality that people have. Very quick example: Calvinists interpret the Bible to spell double predistination, whereas Catholics hold that it is too brutal and unjust, and criticize it on these grounds.
And that's not even getting to the fact that there is, uhm, a large part of the word that's *not* Christian. Such as, well, me. I, quite obviously, hold a different kind of morality than you do. There were and still are cultures that hold moral codes vastly different from what is decreed by the Bible. Of course, going with your line of thinking, they're simply all wrong and in sin, and have to be disregarded. You're the ones that got the Word right.
What was true then was true now? So is Deuteronomy still applicable? No, it fucking isn't, living by deuteronomical code will get you jailed for rape, slavery, murder and arson, because barely any of these - then perfectly acceptable - actions are acceptable now. Then there's the fact that over time, the perception fo Christian values changed: What Origen thought just, Thomas Aquinas would argue with, and the Pope would smite as inhumane.
It is impossible to ignore the fact that humans have vastly different *notions* on morality. In order to preserve your line of thinking, one would have to brush off everyone that maintains moral principles different from your own to be wrong and in sin - that is, the vast majority of the world. It doesn't matter if they honestly and staunchly follow what they believe is to the benefit of all, fuck them, sinners.
Still, the common assertion maintains that there are things that are held to be universally right or wrong, across cultures, such as how murder is wrong. It's also demonstratably false (murder is "unlawful" by definition, so the argument proves nothing without knowing what constitutes murder, and that hasn't been agreed upon).

Coming back to the logical side of the notion of objective morality, it raises the following questions:
Is there a meaningful, inherent difference between good and bad (as in, are there things, events, actions etc that are inherently good or bad in a noticeable way)?
What is the moral code, and how do we know what does it contain (in other words, how do we know what is right and wrong)?
Is morality justified, if then, how? (as in, if something is good or wrong, *why* is this so)?
Where does this morality come from (as in, what is the source of moral code, who decides what is right or wrong)?

If objective morality existed and was palpable (or if it was even possible, because it isn't), there would be a possible set of answers to these questions. there isn't. The issue can't be consistently resolved - as in, no set of answers can be formulated that will answer these four questions AND stay consistent. At the very least, noone managed to find one for 2500 years, and for a good reason. It's not merely unresolved, it's unresolvable. Because the notion of objective morality is invalid and unapplicable.

Now, with that in mind, the notion of "evil" is the product of humans. Evil is what we maintain it to be, for good or ill (heh). This renders the question regarding the "source of evil", as framed in terms of Christian theology, invalid. Since there is not a definitive set of actions, beings, events etc. that could be undisputably categorized as "evil", we cannot possibly divulge on the origins of it. We can only dispute the origins and the reasoning behind the applications of the notion of evil (ie. why is something evil or not).

Fanny Billerdale - Wed, 29 Jul 2015 16:52:17 EST Rxhp79YO No.201948 Reply

>>201944
All those questions are easily answered by the existence of God. Objective morality is defined by God, and made known to us by him. Since you deny God's existence you can't answer those questions. People who have faith can.

As for different people having different morality, that doesn't mean that there is no objective morality. It just means people's perception is warped by their sinful nature. A man without sin would know objective morality perfectly. As Jesus did.

Given that you think that evil is just a human invention, why should we even care about genocide, rape, arson or Job's skin disease? They're just things you don't like, it's just your opinion, there's nothing actually wrong with them. Seems like you want to complain about what your perceive as immoral and claim morality doesn't exist. That makes no sense.

Martin Sirrywill - Wed, 29 Jul 2015 17:12:50 EST gHvCsT5H No.201950 Reply

>>201915
If it's not about testing righteousness then how is job on trial in the trial of job.

Job's dillema is that because of his faith suffering entails something with it. accepting the suffering is accepting condemnation because of his faith, not because of a mistake or assumption made by job.

His faith is tested by the suffering because he can't answer why.

They never touch that or adress if he should feel that way. All the people in the book simply scorn him for bringing it up, job's righteousness is only an example of what's tested, everything job knows in faith is being tested because it's being contradicted.

they never answer how that could be despite bringing the questioning into frame.

The answer to job's questioning is never found, and that's more suffering. And the reason he's looking for a reason is not in spite of his faith, it's because his belief in what exists. Faith in god leads to reason. Thesis leads to anti thesis. But job never gets a reason for the entire process happening that way in the first place, or why.

Essentially job is about things never making sense, but there always being an ever present demand because of your faith to have to justify, but you can't.

Zizek claims job, is about learning rejection. Job has to learn to reject that there is a deeper meaning, but in the entanglement of reason, it becomes increasingly unclear as to how that would even be keeping your faith. Apparently the solution is to wait with "the patience of job" and weather each storm, with no answer each time, without any explanation for what happened or why it happens. But with the faith being the reason you're going to be pulled back into the trap each time.

Martin Sirrywill - Wed, 29 Jul 2015 17:16:52 EST gHvCsT5H No.201951 Reply

>>201950
job only has conflict and prolonged suffering from his losses because of faith. He only has conflicted in reason because of faith. his existential crisis is because of faith. But faith's answer to be tested is to keep the faith, but is the existence of faith the reason the trial keeps going on?

Cyril Niggershit - Wed, 29 Jul 2015 18:37:12 EST yHZPJws1 No.201952 Reply

>>201948

>All those questions are easily answered by the existence of God.

And that's why we need apologietics, I guess.

>Objective morality is defined by God, and made known to us by him.

ONCE AGAIN, Euthyphro's Dilemma. If the difference between right and wrong is by God's fiat, then for God himself there is no difference between right and wrong. If it isn't, then there
You consistently refuse to tackle the issues I bring up and simply recycle the same arguments, regardless of how many times they're questioned. You're a staunch proponent of "Ignore it until it goes away" approach to debating, I see.

>Since you deny God's existence you can't answer those questions.
>People who have faith can.

I can't see why that would be a reasonable distinction. The capability to hold contrary principles for the purpose of inventive reasoning is the virtue of a capable mind. And since I strive to be reasonable, then I can assume the existence of God for the purpose of argumentation to question both your beliefs and mine.
You see, we have different working definitions of "answer". For me, "answer" means sufficient reasoning and/or evidence. For you, an unquestioning acceptance of dogma will suffice. The only kind of "belief" I hold dear is justified true belief, whereas the steadfastness of your definition of "belief" would put Imperial Cult to shame (FER TH'EMPRAH).

And yet still, you dodge the whole burden of putting forward any actual reasoning by reducing it to an article of faith that is true by fiat so long as it is accepted. But it isn't, it's just unquestioned.

I shouldn't pretend to act surprised. Most people don't engage in moral reasoning, they engage in moral rationalization, beginning with the conclusion and rationalizing it, rather than trying to find out. No wonder the world is such a fucking mess.

>As for different people having different morality, that doesn't mean that there is no objective morality. It just means people's perception is warped by their sinful nature.

I'd answer that, if I didn't already.

>A man without sin would know objective morality perfectly. As Jesus did.

Ugh. Let's try from this angle: how do you know what Jesus' morality was? From the Bible? The composition of the Bible itself has been arbitrarily decided by people, and different canons are not congruent with each other, when it comes to morality as well. Most, if not all canons of the Bible (and all dominating ones) contain several different accounts of Jesus' morality that are in conflict with each other. In simple words that can't be twisted that easily: Jesus gives conflicting instructions regarding morality.

>Given that you think that evil is just a human invention

I'll start off by saying that adverse consequences of the opposite are not a valid argument for the viability of a proposition.

>why should we even care about genocide, rape, arson or Job's skin disease?

Justification of moral principles lies with the source of those moral principles. In other words, moral principles that are established as the result of moral reasoning are justified by the reasoning that established them, and their validity or viability can bejudged by dissecting the reasoning and the premises it is based on.
As to your question proper: well, the reason depends on the person you'd ask. Different people will give you different reasons (or tell you that they don't care). I can only speak for myself.

And so... Arguing from the side of consequences: the Golden Rule. Now, Golden Rule is not an absolute rule, but rather a heuristic, the application of which is beneficial to all if widespread. It stands to reason that if there were no moral rule against crime, any person *could* commite crimes without any moral repercussions. But a world full of rape, arson, genocide etc. is undeniably a *shitty* place for most, if not all. As far as human well-being goes, places in which people generally respect each other in regards to not setting each other for fire fare much better than those in which such things are commonplace. Hence, it follows that acting empathically and respecting other people with the expectation that other people do the same is, quite simply, beneficial, in that it brings well-being that foregoing this rule could not.
Arguing from the side of the human condition: Suffering is undesirable, and "wrong" from the POV of the suffering person (unless we're talking BDSM), therefore, they should be spared from it whenever possible.
Arguing from the side of cultural emergence of morality: morality is the result of a group of free agents interacting with each other; the consequence of their interacting is the negotiating of a moral code. It is both an unspoken agreement between the members of the group and the individual take a member has on the issue. Since needless suffering is pretty much universally frowned upon in my cultural circle (at least on paper, so long as hypocrisy exists...) and I've yet to encounter anything that would force me to renegotiate my take on the issue, it falls withing the realm of "bad" in my book.

Anyways, I can justify things like that pretty much until I run out of ideas, which will is probably not too soon.

>They're just things you don't like, it's just your opinion, there's nothing actually wrong with them.

So long as we remain entrenched in theistic rhetoric and frame things in such language, yes.
Anyways, going back to Euthyphro Dillemma - why would God be excempt from the pitfalls of the fiat of morality? Take that sentence and apply it to the divine source of morality, it will be just as valid. What's good and bad is just stuff God likes and dislikes - what special significance would that have?

>Seems like you want to complain about what your perceive as immoral and claim morality doesn't exist. That makes no sense.

You did a very good job criticizing a point I not only did not make, but never intended to make.
Of course it makes no sense, for the simple reason is that I don't claim that morality does not exist. I made no such claim, nor do I intend to, because that's blatantly false. Where did you get that from? Wait, I don't know if I want to know.

The point I *did* make, is this, and I'll spell it out for you: Morality is not objective, but subjective in nature. It arises from the subjects (ie. people) rather than some objective source (ie. God).

Cyril Niggershit - Wed, 29 Jul 2015 19:13:38 EST yHZPJws1 No.201953 Reply

>>201950

>Zizek claims job, is about learning rejection. Job has to learn to reject that there is a deeper meaning, but in the entanglement of reason, it becomes increasingly unclear as to how that would even be keeping your faith. Apparently the solution is to wait with "the patience of job" and weather each storm, with no answer each time, without any explanation for what happened or why it happens. But with the faith being the reason you're going to be pulled back into the trap each time.

I'd build on that. It can be understood to be a critique of seeking consolation in faith. People usually employ denial as a coping mechanic. Now, considering Job lived in a thoroughly religious cultural circle, it wouldn't be easy for him to stomach a non-theistic outlook. In addition to that, there's the issue of foxhole faith - in times of extreme distress, people cling to whatever they can, regardless of validity. Following that, Job, who was subject to extreme suffering, fell back on faith to cope with the suffering, regardless of whether it made sense or not, because it was a familiar principle he could hold on to. The more suffering he was in, the more tightly he clung to faith, continuously conditioning himself to become even more faithful, and doubt-proofing himself in the process.

This isn't relevant only to religion - the same mechanism causes, let's say, people with cancer or parents of authistic children fall for bullshit therapies so nonsensical they border on self-parody and stick to them against all reason. There's a story of a woman who developed a skin tumor on her nose, and would have to undergo an amputation and then a reconstructive surgery. This scared her so much, she negotiated a fallback on more "cozy" ground - alternative medicine. Alt med gave her promise of security which she clung to, all while applying black salve on her face. This killed the face. Kinda literally, she gradually burnt the shit of most of her mug over the course of several months.
Nevertheless, she carried on with the treatment, even as she was surely noticing that what she was doing was turning her book into the facial equivalent of the Necronomicon. After being rushed to the hospital (took them long enough) and treated (kind of, face still gone), she was asked if she regrets it. She didn't.

Why did she carry on with her belief in the medicine, and why did she so blatantly deny the utter failure of its effectiveness? Because faith in that medicine was her consolation in distress. As the gruesome effects of the medicine kicked in and she found herself in unbearable pain that no doubt comes with burning your face, the distress that caused her to vest faith in the first place led to the paradoxical strengthening of this very same faith in spite of all reason ("turn that frown into a necrotic scab"; I AM SO SORRY).

Albert Ginkinstone - Thu, 30 Jul 2015 02:20:59 EST gHvCsT5H No.201955 Reply

>>201953
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0jzsne1TRI

here is a bit of what i was talking about.

There is the temptation to find meaning in why job suffered, and then there is job who who doesn't say he is innocent, just that there is no meaning, while beset with interpretations of meaning.

This is his patience.

Henry Gattingnone - Thu, 30 Jul 2015 13:45:17 EST oxJMfop8 No.201961 Reply

I figure I should mention that the Christian and Jewish interpretations of a LOT of the OT/written torah are really different.

Even within Christianity and Judaism, different sects interpret the books differently than other sects.

There are so many ways that the Bible is interpreted.

>>	Basil Wirringdock - Thu, 30 Jul 2015 14:06:37 EST 54PBc7Id No.201962 Reply >>201961 All things are interpreted in infinite different ways. What does that say about the word of God?

Hedda Pittstock - Thu, 30 Jul 2015 14:33:19 EST yHZPJws1 No.201968 Reply

>>201961

>I figure I should mention that the Christian and Jewish interpretations of a LOT of the OT/written torah are really different.

Well, considering the fact that even their notions on what even constitutes Torah/OT vary significantly... the Septuagint and the Masoretic text contain notable textual differences, and that the New Testament was written with references to the Septuagint, rather than the more conservative Hebrew (non-hellenizing) Torah tradition, and the existence of the deuterocanonical books...

>Even within Christianity and Judaism, different sects interpret the books differently than other sects.

Well, yes. That's an awful lot of groups thinking they have gotten the absolute morality right, don'cha think?
>>201955
Zizek's way of narrating never fails to irk me. Still, his interpretation is viable.

I have to admit to making a logical leap of sorts, one that I made with the purpose of making my point clear in mind. The Book of Job can be interpreted in many ways - I interpreted it as most dogmatic Christians interpret it, to be a praise of denial and the praise of suppression of moral reasoning in favor of blind acceptance. But it's not the only one out there.
In truth, there is one interpretation, brought upon by textual analysis, that presents the Book of Job in a way similar to the one Zizek brings about. It assumes that the part of Elihu is an interpolation, a later addition, and that the addition of his part either overwrote an earlier, unknown content, or added to a story that would otherwise end abruptly (with all the suspense that it brings). The assumption is not without merit; the Book of Job does seem to be one of *those* parts of the OT tradition like Ecclesiastes or the Song of Songs (you know the ones), at least as far as style and apparent philosophical implications (both their peculiarity AND their innovativeness) go. But some parts stick out; both in respect to the overall philosophical tone, and to the fact that from a literary standpoint, they bear every sign of having been added by an author not belonging to the tradition that spawned the text they were added to. In throwing them out and reading the rest, one can't help but notice its tone changes dramatically, as if to match that of the nigh-nihilist Ecclesiastes. This is all the more interesting that Job seems to be pre-exilic, whereas Ecclesisastes isn't.

Matilda Gooddale - Fri, 31 Jul 2015 03:45:46 EST G1+73k58 No.201987 Reply

>>201968

That's one of the weirdest things about job. It's included in a book of faith as a parable about not caving in in the face of nihilism, but after the story is rendered I can't help but feel like Kyle in South Park and shut down a little because the story itself seems incredibly nihilist. Even though like zizek says it's perplexing that meaning comes out of rejection of meaning. I'm a way I like the idea of the story being about how little control there is in the universe. It reminds me of a parable of a time where a human faced insanity in his psyche but came out the other end. Because the universe was not arranged against him by a controlling force the higher power itself was affected by the same perplexity.

It's harrowing in a way because if job just wanted to ease his distress and not feel in pain and theoretically ease his relations with his peers he could have conformed to the views they were expressing. Which weren't more or less enlightened but examples of faith that put more of a grand justice on every event as if they were controlled by a cosmic justice system of some sort.

I think this is something to admire about job, and my personal religious relevance to receive from the story. Job risked becoming an enemy of the people not even in the traditional sense of presenting message they didn't want to hear. But by not accepting one that existed in consensus that he was told.

Reuben Hongerdale - Fri, 31 Jul 2015 04:46:53 EST yHZPJws1 No.201988 Reply

>>201987

>I'm a way I like the idea of the story being about how little control there is in the universe.

Because that's what it would seem to be about if we took out the interpolation. God here plays secondary role - almost like an actor. Well, that's not to say the book is atheistic or something - it isn't - but it's the human condition that is the central part of the story.

Both Job and Ecclesiastes are ground-breaking in that they contain what could be interpreted to be the very first signs of humanism in philosophy. This might seem controversial given their nihilistic content (which quite clearly de-emphasizes the agency of humans), but their philosophical reasoning revolves around human impressions, doubts, thoughts and fears.

Wesley Honningstone - Mon, 03 Aug 2015 12:50:38 EST Kf/DS3qV No.202070 Reply

>>201897
Because mysterious ways and shit.
Look, kid. You do not need to be questioning this shit. If you do not understand something just take heart in the fact that it's all of God's plan and if you go picking and prying you, and you alone, will ruin it for all of us.

Martin Bomblespear - Wed, 05 Aug 2015 20:18:42 EST xfEnPPRI No.202160 Reply

1438820322311.jpg -(42279B / 41.29KB, 650x387) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.

I don't think you appreciate how retarded humans are/were.
I think we actually have become an enlightened species in the modern world, but only in the 20th century.

The scientific method was not formalized until around a thousand years ago and up until 300 years ago in Europe, when people found old stone age tools, they thought they were lucky "thunderstones" that came from heaven.

People had completely forgotten about the stone ages all over the world until Darwin came out with the Origin of Species, before then everyone just followed their creation stories and put absolutely no thought into the idea of how old civilization actually was.

>>	William Nallywater - Thu, 06 Aug 2015 04:23:08 EST yHZPJws1 No.202162 Reply >>202160 Irrationalists bashing the scientific method arrive in 5... 4... 3... 2...

>>	Beatrice Buzzbanks - Thu, 06 Aug 2015 10:22:52 EST QX2zsVWc No.202166 Reply >>202160 Would Darwin have been motivated to look for that explanation without the religious explanations for our origins being all we had

Beatrice Lightham - Mon, 10 Aug 2015 13:46:23 EST vU7e9Q79 No.202206 Reply

1439228783836.png -(902728B / 881.57KB, 1024x563) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.

CUZ GOD ISNT REAL STOOPID WE ALL KNOW THSI! you your own god and shit nugga. the bible is not the word of god its the word of some old bros.

but try convincing god freaks about this, or my over try convincing someone like me of god.

if believing in Santa makes you feel better about being totally alone, scared and meaningless, then im all for it. heck that sound so appealing sometimes i wish i believed in Santa.

>>	Eliza Sinnerchere - Mon, 10 Aug 2015 19:18:34 EST OacPc8lB No.202216 Reply >>202160 The creation stories were right. Problem is, people along the way started to change them for convenience or personal gain, like the Jews.

>>	Jenny Hankintut - Sun, 20 Dec 2015 21:59:28 EST Hxhsp7aG No.204530 Reply Because that God was for another time.

>>	Doris Hillychuck - Tue, 22 Dec 2015 07:33:59 EST nmUQgXEH No.204537 Reply >>201899 an alternative explanation could be that god isn't real and the bible is just made up by humans

Basil Gembleridge - Sun, 17 Apr 2016 00:18:28 EST Lov94K83 No.205694 Reply

1460866708357.jpg -(27991B / 27.33KB, 640x301) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.

>>201899
The bible does kimd of tell us how yo become -gods- ourselves; believe in jeebus. Jk we all know that shit was a product of mankind.

Basil Gembleridge - Sun, 17 Apr 2016 09:34:43 EST Lov94K83 No.205698 Reply

>>201919
What the fuck is the point of accepting yourself as an inately "sinful" creature? Just so you might go to this intangenital, unprovable, place that some genocidial shitlord that said that stoning people for having sex was ok told you existed? Then you, my good friend, really need to check out your own logic because it sounds like you might actually be insane

Basil Gembleridge - Sun, 17 Apr 2016 10:04:09 EST Lov94K83 No.205699 Reply

>>201925

>If the world was perfect, then we wouldn't have learnt anything. We wouldn't have evolved the intelligence to abstract the truth so well. We wouldn't even be here. Existence of the universe itself implies imperfection. Verily.

> your argument: life is imlerfect because y'know the universe is like imperfect an stuff.
This is litterally fucking retarded. Life is imperfect because the universe thst you believe was created by a -perfect- being is imperfect. Lolwut.flac. why the fuck would god create sonething so fucked up if he's a benevolent being. One can only derive three reasonable conclusions from that
1) That god is imperfect an thus cannot create a perfect world
2) That god is malevolent and under his own laws of ethic is imperfect
Or 3) That god simply doesn't exist
Seriosly use ochum razor (simplest answer is probably true) and the answer reveils itself pretty easily
TL; DR: God doesn't exist because the world in and of itself tends towards simplicity, and god be no means fits into that

Basil Gembleridge - Sun, 17 Apr 2016 10:25:25 EST Lov94K83 No.205700 Reply

>>201936
You accept a failed premise to begin with, i.e that free will exists as a concept in the real world. I'm just a product of the environment that I exist in. True free will is in truth impossible because it accepts a premise that your actions exist seperate from your surrounding. Try to exist sperate from your surroundings and you cease to exist (not that *you* do in the first place but I degress)

>>	Basil Gembleridge - Sun, 17 Apr 2016 10:31:07 EST Lov94K83 No.205701 Reply >>201940 >Truth, morality , ethics don't vary with time and place. What was true then is still true now. So is it still cool to like own people because for fucks sake I need a jolly african-american to mow my lawn for me

>>	Basil Gembleridge - Sun, 17 Apr 2016 10:42:05 EST Lov94K83 No.205702 Reply >>201948 The Holocaust was just like Hitlers opinion man

>>	Albert Chagglehatch - Sun, 17 Apr 2016 10:50:22 EST 1iJ/Y3fp No.205704 Reply Because the Bible is the edited, re/mistranslated rambling mythology of Bronze Age savages.

>>	Albert Chagglehatch - Sun, 17 Apr 2016 14:11:52 EST 1iJ/Y3fp No.205710 Reply So I went and read this thread, and holy fuck. Members of Abrahamic faiths should be burned in wicker men, god fucking damn.

>>	Ian Dablinghall - Thu, 05 Jan 2017 13:58:53 EST izZplL2J No.207549 Reply I'm going to play "bevils avitcit but fuck the Jew gay frogs that Obama

>>	the flicker !FwnV7hV52I - Thu, 05 Jan 2017 20:56:39 EST vano1wpA No.207550 Reply You just blew this case wide open, Nigel Gerryshit. Great work. Looks to me like the Bible didn't include any of that stuff so a really smart guy like you could come along and expose the whole thing.

>>	Cyril Blavingtere - Fri, 06 Jan 2017 07:14:48 EST xA39R98b No.207551 Reply I come to /pss/ seeking perspective and this is what i get don't bump this thread anymore nb

Angus Billingstone - Fri, 06 Jan 2017 19:59:48 EST 5FY/Jbq3 No.207553 Reply

>>207551
The more genuine a board proposes to be, the worse it is. /pss/ is about high intellectual discussion, so in fact it's dickwaving and shitposting. /qq/ is about venting and support, so it's cannibalistic.

/b/ is about trolling and shitposting, so instead it's philosophy, people seeking kind words, and anime.

>>	Emma Cesslehit - Mon, 09 Jan 2017 01:14:16 EST NsFksadU No.207565 Reply >>207551 Hey man this was a good thread, it deserves posterity. I don't know why you're complaining anyway. You want perspective, you got a shit load of perspectives here.

Thomas Blackway - Mon, 09 Jan 2017 19:49:13 EST Z08uqMmD No.207566 Reply

OP, your post reminds me of when I first questioned Christianity as the belief system I was raised in.

Here's a conclusion to your inevitably long line of questioning:

Religion is a fiction people tell themselves to cope with the fact that they will eventually die. When you die, you enter a black void of nothingness, and you will not even know that you passed through that void because you will simply not exist. Nothing you do in this life matters because regardless of any lasting impact you may have on society, it will eventually crumble into ultimate entropy.

You should feel liberated; this means you have the freedom to pursue anything you wish. Though I have to admit, even though I believe all this, I find myself still getting caught up in the daily grind; planning for a future that ultimately means nothing, caught in endless loops of behavior.

I say YOLOSWAG it. Even though I don't follow this ideology, this is how we should live our lives. The only thing really worth doing is enjoying yourself and helping others through this mess of life.

Lydia Nucklefield - Tue, 10 Jan 2017 07:38:47 EST xA39R98b No.207568 Reply

>>207565
You know why I'm complaining because at best this thread is "lets try and have some jokes on this overlayered topic again". Shit's overplayed and boring, barely has any substance in it.

Why didn't people in year 300 didn't have today's view of the world? Might as well keep this line of questioning and ponder on why did men dress like faggots during reneissance?

Basically every thread on christianity / islam / religion is a bait thread since the dotcom bubble and STILL everyone catches the bait, feels like they've got something to add and tries to convert someone.
Yeah the fucker thinks a superpower is or isn't seeing him. Nothing new here and nothing's gonna change except an even bigger gap of trust between groups people.

Btw sometimes I'm also inclined to reply and be like "tell ya what" but I've learned it's less frustrating avoid it and say fuck it. Nobody's reading your counter-argument with "oh you've got a good point there." Except rare cases, everybody's reading it with only a counter-attack in mind. And that's an infinite loop of silly smart-assing. You won't counter-rationalize someone's years' train of thought and insist yours is better because x and y and people around you agree. Both sides got it the same way with different details.

>>207553
kind words is a bit of exaggeration of perspective

John Willerpure - Tue, 10 Jan 2017 22:57:24 EST NsFksadU No.207569 Reply

>>207568
Well I don't think it's a good thing for this forum as a whole to shy away from a subject such as religion just because you don't like it. The opening question might have been moronic on the surface, but it's the contribution of everyone that adds value to the discussion.

Yes people take different sides, but it's important for everyone to keep an open mind and at least try to see how the other person thinks.

Yes people make jokes on the subject, but as they say, humor is the health of the soul. You've got to look past the smart-assing and see the true soulful message within. Don't act like people can never change their opinion on something, it happens every day.

Esther Grimfield - Fri, 03 Mar 2017 01:14:14 EST 4+oWREai No.207822 Reply

Experts in this sort of field have revealed, and will continue to reveal, the extreme lack of credibility with its claims. It's also been shown to have clear plagerism. Yahweh suddenly changed when Zoroastrianism took hold. Suprise, now Yahweh has the same qualities as theirs. It's almost like it was written by people to create a peoples with a common identity. Given times it will be proven that Jesus himself was a literary invention. It's almost as though when studying the Bible like any other mythology reveals that it's like other mythologies of their time.

>>	Angus Billykirk - Fri, 03 Mar 2017 02:17:14 EST jYcEvk8u No.207823 Reply >>207822 >Given times it will be proven that Jesus himself was a literary invention. That's one hell of an assumption on your part

Reuben Blatherway - Fri, 03 Mar 2017 10:20:59 EST 54PBc7Id No.207829 Reply

>>207822
I'd agree with you if Jesus wasn't also in the Quran.
That being said, the Quran was written 400 years after the Bible, so, technically Jesus could be made-up.
But I think in reality Jesus is like Beowulf. He was just some dude, and one day legends about him spread, and then they become larger than life by all means, to the point where all the stories surrounding him might as well be fake.

Esther Grimfield - Fri, 03 Mar 2017 12:13:47 EST 4+oWREai No.207830 Reply

>>207823
The assumption lies with those that treat the Bible apart from all other myths of its day. Richard Carrier will eventuall cause a snowball effect which will pull away the shroud of obvious biases to allow people to finally understand the obviousness of it all.

Jesus being in the Quran just means that one work of lit took from another wlrk of lit to give itself more merits.

It could be that Jesus was just some dude that snowballed into what it is today but there is good evidence otherwise.

Esther Grimfield - Fri, 03 Mar 2017 12:24:03 EST 4+oWREai No.207831 Reply

>>207829
I recommend looking up Richard Carriers lectures. The Jesus myth people donated him to see if there is any merit to the idea. Think of it as the zeitgeist film but researched by a legitimate ancient historian phd. He changed his mind and realized that there is merit to the ideas. An example, cult of Romulus even had a passion play and its dated older than christianity.

>>	Cedric Binkinson - Mon, 06 Mar 2017 10:36:14 EST 54PBc7Id No.207839 Reply >>207831 Whether Jesus was real or not doesn't matter. I know the stories surrounding Jesus are mostly if not totally false, so, who cares? Teaching lessons via myth is just a normal part of history.

Nigel Sondlespear - Mon, 06 Mar 2017 13:25:02 EST 4+oWREai No.207844 Reply

>>207839
It matters when the alternative is believed as historical fact. Christianity rests on the idea that this all happened in reality to give itself credibility. It matters in the social and political and even psychological sense. It also matters in a scholarly sense. It hampers scholarship to give credence to a thing that does not deserve any and only given throughg enerations of assumptions which carries over from its inception thousands of years ago.

Some atheists argue believers are in some ways victimized by these beliefs that has a strong hold over our government policy making and ways in which societys behaves. I think there is a very good argument to be made that if they are victims then it would ethical to offer help.

Name	You can leave this blank to post anonymously, or you can create a Tripcode by using the format Name#Password

Comment	[i]Italic Text[/i] [b]Bold Text[/b] [spoiler]Spoiler Text[/spoiler] >Highlight/Quote Text [pre]Preformatted & Monospace Text[/pre] [super]^{Superset Text}[/super] [sub]_{Subset Text}[/sub] 1. Numbered lists become ordered lists * Bulleted lists become unordered lists


File	No Bump Sandwich