|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on May 17, 2020 0:44:57 GMT
Yes....IT does not say God chooses who goes to heaven. Nor does it mention faith not being a factor. That's a parable. You're supposed to figure out what the moral is. That's not a parable. Jesus sometimes told parables, but the event with the prostitute supposedly literally happened. I had this same discussion ages ago with people who didn't understand the difference between simile, metaphor, allegory, parable, and straight-up lessons. Jesus saying "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" is probably best categorized as a lesson, where the "cast the first stone" can be both literal (as that was the situation they were in) and metaphoric (where "casting the stone" can be a metaphor for any kind of judgment).
|
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on May 17, 2020 0:45:10 GMT
I never said I speak for "ALL" other believers. No, you just speak for all other non believers the point being that YOUR belief is personal and you can neither speak for all other believers or all other non-believers which you have done in this thread consistently. I never said I did. Don't blame me if you jumped to the wrong conclusion. |
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on May 17, 2020 0:46:46 GMT
That's a parable. You're supposed to figure out what the moral is. That's not a parable. Jesus sometimes told parables, but the event with the prostitute supposedly literally happened. I had this same discussion ages ago with people who didn't understand the difference between simile, metaphor, allegory, parable, and straight-up lessons. Jesus saying "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" is probably best categorized as a lesson, where the "cast the first stone" can be both literal (as that was the situation they were in) and metaphoric (where "casting the stone" can be a metaphor for any kind of judgment). No, it's a parable. PARABLE - a simple story used to illustrate a moral or spiritual lesson, as told by Jesus in the Gospels. |
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on May 17, 2020 0:49:07 GMT
I'm not telling you to believe. Why are you on the Religion, Faith and Spirituality board if you're so content with you position on religion, faith and spirituality? What has that got to do with anything at all? Why do people debate history philosophy religion films books music? To learn, teach and/or share ideas. What are you trying to learn or teach me? |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on May 17, 2020 0:49:20 GMT
Well, using your own analogy you could be wasting much of your life standing in an empty closet that actually contains neither eternal salvation nor happiness. Instead you could be outside and free with the same level of happiness. As far as "what do you have to lose," assuming a God exists, you could lose everything if you've chosen the wrong God; or, assuming a God doesn't exist, at best you could just be wasting your time, and at worst you could be harming others and yourself depending on how your belief affects your actions. I've already told you, I'm already happy. I tried door #1. I wasn't happy. So, if there's no afterlife, I've still had a happy life. But if I had chosen door #1, I could lose out on a possible eternal salvation and happiness. It's not logical to take that risk. Your happiness, however, is not a gauge for truth. There's a whole logical fallacy called Wishful Thinking that recognizes that. You might ask why it is that your psychological happiness depends on a belief regardless if it's wrong compared to simply accepting the truth, whatever that may be. You might also ask whether you could find happiness without that belief and if you've really tried. Meditation, mindfulness, therapy, philosophy... there's all kinds of things out there besides religion, and I doubt you've tried them all. I'd even ask what specifically it is about religion that you think brings you happiness. You possibly lose out on eternal salvation and happiness either way. Again, suppose a god exists, but this god will only reward atheists who used logic, evidence, and reason to reach the conclusion no god exists, even though one does? In that case, D1 is also the door to eternal salvation, and there's every bit as much evidence for my imagined God than yours.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on May 17, 2020 0:54:49 GMT
That's not a parable. Jesus sometimes told parables, but the event with the prostitute supposedly literally happened. I had this same discussion ages ago with people who didn't understand the difference between simile, metaphor, allegory, parable, and straight-up lessons. Jesus saying "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" is probably best categorized as a lesson, where the "cast the first stone" can be both literal (as that was the situation they were in) and metaphoric (where "casting the stone" can be a metaphor for any kind of judgment). No, it's a parable. PARABLE - a simple story used to illustrate a moral or spiritual lesson, as told by Jesus in the Gospels.Jesus is not telling that story. He is IN the story that was written by the Gospel author. Jesus does, sometimes, tell parables within the story he's in, but that's not one of those times. To claim that story's a parable would be to claim the entire Gospel is a parable and that Jesus wasn't an historical figure. If you've seen The Princess Bride, it's analogous to the grandfather reading the book to the grandson. The parts of the film with the grandfather and grandson are the story, while the story being read by the grandfather is the story-within-the-story. Jesus's parables are the story-within-a-story of The Princess Bride, while everything involving Jesus directly, like the event with the prostitute, is a story that (supposedly) literally happened historically.
|
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on May 17, 2020 1:38:47 GMT
No, it's a parable. PARABLE - a simple story used to illustrate a moral or spiritual lesson, as told by Jesus in the Gospels.Jesus is not telling that story. He is IN the story that was written by the Gospel author. Jesus does, sometimes, tell parables within the story he's in, but that's not one of those times. To claim that story's a parable would be to claim the entire Gospel is a parable and that Jesus wasn't an historical figure. If you've seen The Princess Bride, it's analogous to the grandfather reading the book to the grandson. The parts of the film with the grandfather and grandson are the story, while the story being read by the grandfather is the story-within-the-story. Jesus's parables are the story-within-a-story of The Princess Bride, while everything involving Jesus directly, like the event with the prostitute, is a story that (supposedly) literally happened historically. I never said Jesus told that story. I just said it was a parable. |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on May 17, 2020 1:40:39 GMT
Jesus is not telling that story. He is IN the story that was written by the Gospel author. Jesus does, sometimes, tell parables within the story he's in, but that's not one of those times. To claim that story's a parable would be to claim the entire Gospel is a parable and that Jesus wasn't an historical figure. If you've seen The Princess Bride, it's analogous to the grandfather reading the book to the grandson. The parts of the film with the grandfather and grandson are the story, while the story being read by the grandfather is the story-within-the-story. Jesus's parables are the story-within-a-story of The Princess Bride, while everything involving Jesus directly, like the event with the prostitute, is a story that (supposedly) literally happened historically. I never said Jesus told that story. I just said it was a parable. So you're claiming it didn't happen? So are all stories involving Jesus parables?
|
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on May 17, 2020 1:52:59 GMT
I've already told you, I'm already happy. I tried door #1. I wasn't happy. So, if there's no afterlife, I've still had a happy life. But if I had chosen door #1, I could lose out on a possible eternal salvation and happiness. It's not logical to take that risk. Your happiness, however, is not a gauge for truth. There's a whole logical fallacy called Wishful Thinking that recognizes that. You might ask why it is that your psychological happiness depends on a belief regardless if it's wrong compared to simply accepting the truth, whatever that may be. You might also ask whether you could find happiness without that belief and if you've really tried. Meditation, mindfulness, therapy, philosophy... there's all kinds of things out there besides religion, and I doubt you've tried them all. I'd even ask what specifically it is about religion that you think brings you happiness. You possibly lose out on eternal salvation and happiness either way. Again, suppose a god exists, but this god will only reward atheists who used logic, evidence, and reason to reach the conclusion no god exists, even though one does? In that case, D1 is also the door to eternal salvation, and there's every bit as much evidence for my imagined God than yours. 1) I already told you, I believe the maximum attainment of happiness and the maximum avoidance of unhappiness is the number one goal of humans. That's the truth. Believing in God makes me happy. 2) Great. Keep chosing door number 1 if that's what works for you. Door #1 didn't work for me. |
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on May 17, 2020 1:54:50 GMT
I never said Jesus told that story. I just said it was a parable. So you're claiming it didn't happen? So are all stories involving Jesus parables? How would I know? I wasn't around 2 thousand years ago. |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on May 17, 2020 2:05:24 GMT
Your happiness, however, is not a gauge for truth. There's a whole logical fallacy called Wishful Thinking that recognizes that. You might ask why it is that your psychological happiness depends on a belief regardless if it's wrong compared to simply accepting the truth, whatever that may be. You might also ask whether you could find happiness without that belief and if you've really tried. Meditation, mindfulness, therapy, philosophy... there's all kinds of things out there besides religion, and I doubt you've tried them all. I'd even ask what specifically it is about religion that you think brings you happiness. You possibly lose out on eternal salvation and happiness either way. Again, suppose a god exists, but this god will only reward atheists who used logic, evidence, and reason to reach the conclusion no god exists, even though one does? In that case, D1 is also the door to eternal salvation, and there's every bit as much evidence for my imagined God than yours. 1) I already told you, I believe the maximum attainment of happiness and the maximum avoidance of unhappiness is the number one goal of humans. That's the truth. Believing in God makes me happy. 2) Great. Keep chosing door number 1 if that's what works for you. Door #1 didn't work for me. And I already told you that to pretend that believing something's true just because it makes you happy can be extremely foolish, especially if that belief affects other choices you make that end up being the wrong decisions because of that belief. Would you seriously tell someone who went around pretending to be a millionaire, and acting/spending like they were, to keep doing so because if made them happy even if you knew they were actually harming themselves? You can use a million examples to illustrate that same point; dangerous drugs can make people happy, until they overdose; smoking can make people happy, until they get cancer, or suffer a heart-attack or stroke; drinking can make people happy until they get in an auto accident because their judgment's impaired; etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on May 17, 2020 2:05:24 GMT
You can't see it because that's what happens to people who are not skeptical but your concept of "science" is highly "idealized." The picture parents present to their children of how much better parents know things than children is often a bit exaggerated. You have the mind of a small child and a childish faith in that picture. You can insult all you want Arlon, but it doesn't change the fundamental point that you're skeptical of experts, even when there's an expert consensus, but think ordinary people can accurately theorize about what happens to them. That's worse than the mind of a small child, that's the mind of someone who will only accept evidence for things they already believe or want to believe. It takes a special kind of adult irrationality to do that. At least children are capable of learning and getting better, while I fear there's no hope for you. Yes, and especially people you think are experts, and I'm a bit proud of it. I'm sorry there isn't a better way to help you out of your situation than to describe it rather bluntly.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on May 17, 2020 2:06:04 GMT
So you're claiming it didn't happen? So are all stories involving Jesus parables? How would I know? I wasn't around 2 thousand years ago. Then you also weren't around to know if the authors intended it as a parable. It certainly doesn't read like a parable, it reads like an historical account.
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on May 17, 2020 2:10:44 GMT
You can insult all you want Arlon, but it doesn't change the fundamental point that you're skeptical of experts, even when there's an expert consensus, but think ordinary people can accurately theorize about what happens to them. That's worse than the mind of a small child, that's the mind of someone who will only accept evidence for things they already believe or want to believe. It takes a special kind of adult irrationality to do that. At least children are capable of learning and getting better, while I fear there's no hope for you. Yes, and especially people you think are experts, and I'm a bit proud of it. I'm sorry there isn't a better way to help you out of your situation than to describe it rather bluntly. Why are acknowledged experts in a field NOT experts, Arlon? How many degrees in science do you have, positions in Universities or scientific laboratories and years and years of study and practice perfecting your expertise, so that your peers review your work and acknowledge it as of scientific value and worth being added to the compendium of human knowledge? Personally I don't have any however I admire people who do and read their work and take advantage of the benefits that come from such work in my everyday life.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on May 17, 2020 2:11:01 GMT
You can insult all you want Arlon, but it doesn't change the fundamental point that you're skeptical of experts, even when there's an expert consensus, but think ordinary people can accurately theorize about what happens to them. That's worse than the mind of a small child, that's the mind of someone who will only accept evidence for things they already believe or want to believe. It takes a special kind of adult irrationality to do that. At least children are capable of learning and getting better, while I fear there's no hope for you. Yes, and especially people you think are experts, and I'm a bit proud of it. You're also proud to admit you decide who experts are based on who agrees with you. I decide who experts are based on their reputation within the scientific community, so, eg, Nobel Prize winners, or members of the National Academy of Scientists or Royal Society of London, or even just people with PhD's on general matters within their field. You'd have us doubting all of these people when they disagree with you. It's also no wonder why you'd have us questioning experts, because you want us to believe you're one.
|
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on May 17, 2020 2:18:12 GMT
1) I already told you, I believe the maximum attainment of happiness and the maximum avoidance of unhappiness is the number one goal of humans. That's the truth. Believing in God makes me happy. 2) Great. Keep chosing door number 1 if that's what works for you. Door #1 didn't work for me. And I already told you that to pretend that believing something's true just because it makes you happy can be extremely foolish, especially if that belief affects other choices you make that end up being the wrong decisions because of that belief. Would you seriously tell someone who went around pretending to be a millionaire, and acting/spending like they were, to keep doing so because if made them happy even if you knew they were actually harming themselves? You can use a million examples to illustrate that same point; dangerous drugs can make people happy, until they overdose; smoking can make people happy, until they get cancer, or suffer a heart-attack or stroke; drinking can make people happy until they get in an auto accident because their judgment's impaired; etc. So, what is one supposed to do if they don't know which --- of two choices --- they are supposed to chose? I say try them both and pick the one that works the best. That's what I did. |
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on May 17, 2020 2:20:42 GMT
How would I know? I wasn't around 2 thousand years ago. Then you also weren't around to know if the authors intended it as a parable. It certainly doesn't read like a parable, it reads like an historical account. That's what we were taught. The Bible is a collection of parables. Not an historical account. |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on May 17, 2020 2:34:00 GMT
"Your life", as from a perception projected by you??? What is my life and how does this correlate to what you equate as freedom?
I can't answer an abstract with an absolute, especially when it makes no sense.
You're avoiding the question TC. Would you rather go back to your life as it is right now? Or would you want to take a chance on being killed by a tiger? It's a simple question. You are intentionally avoiding answering. You are talking rubbish. What about my life as it is right now and going back to it? Where did it go to begin with? You don’t know what you are talking about, or how to express yourself with clarity or logical reason, so quit pretending that you know s<>t, when you don’t.
|
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on May 17, 2020 2:35:46 GMT
You're avoiding the question TC. Would you rather go back to your life as it is right now? Or would you want to take a chance on being killed by a tiger? It's a simple question. You are intentionally avoiding answering. You are talking rubbish. What about my life as it is right now and going back to it? Where did it go to begin with? You don’t know what you are talking about, or how to express yourself with clarity or logical reason, so quit pretending that you know s<>t, when you don’t. Blah, blah, blah . . . You're avoiding the question. Might as well just admit I'm correct and you're wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on May 17, 2020 2:37:02 GMT
Because you're assuming several things. 1) That you picked the right God2) That you picked the right way of worshipping him. How do you know that by accepting Jesus, you're not pissing off Allah? Or Yahwe, because Jesus was a liar? How do you know that Odin or Jupiter aren't currently fuming at how people are worshipping the imaginary god of the Jews? You're talking as much of, if not more of a risk than I am. I think God, Allah and Yaweh are the same God, with different names. And I don't believe God really cares if you are a Christian, a Jew, a Muslim, a Buddhist, or a Hindu. As long as you are a good person. So why does one have to have this belief thing?
|
|
