Discussion of the BrandonMustang thread debate thread...

[Vyraeth]

It's obvious that you intuitively think that you should do this--you made a half-hearted start at doing it in your last post, even though you vehemently denied that you had any reason to. Right now your 'argument' amounts to "I disagree, so nyah!"

Why don't you lay off the misapplication of burden of proof rules and offer a counterargument?

Spent a whole post backing it up? His entire reasoning is contingent on theists deriving a sense of importance because a deity watches over them constantly.

As Darth Wong pointed out, and I agree with, that may apply to Christian theists, but how would that apply to someone who practices Hinduism, where there really isn't an all-watching, all-knowing god?

[Feil]

Well, holy shit, you provided a counterargument. Guess he had an argument to debunk after all, huh?

[Master of Cards]

It's obvious that you intuitively think that you should do this--you made a half-hearted start at doing it in your last post, even though you vehemently denied that you had any reason to. Right now your 'argument' amounts to "I disagree, so nyah!"

Why don't you lay off the misapplication of burden of proof rules and offer a counterargument?

Spent a whole post backing it up? His entire reasoning is contingent on theists deriving a sense of importance because a deity watches over them constantly.

As Darth Wong pointed out, and I agree with, that may apply to Christian theists, but how would that apply to someone who practices Hinduism, where there really isn't an all-watching, all-knowing god?

Theres not one but THREE(well the god has multiple sides its one god with multiple sides)

[Ar-Adunakhor]

As Darth Wong pointed out, and I agree with, that may apply to Christian theists, but how would that apply to someone who practices Hinduism, where there really isn't an all-watching, all-knowing god?

My position is not contingent on an omnipotent/omniscent deity, merely one who has supposedly given a ruleset to live by or taken an undue interest in humans. In my previous argument I used the omnipotent deity label due to my specific (and, honestly, fucking obvious) focus on Christians, even though it was not required. So, you want to discuss Hinduism as a possible rebuttal? Sure, but I suggest you try to find out more about your counter-example before using it, next time.

A great many sects (perhaps most or all, but there are a lot and it's hard to catalog them all) of Hinduism, as 10 minutes of research might have told you, are equally guilty of self-aggrandizement. Village or family gods who for some reason would be interested and set edicts, Water Dancers dancing for days without rest to attract the notice of spirits and gods, the fact that the Devi herself manifested to defeat a demon bull lording over the world, and the numerous times the gods fought demons on behalf of mortals and issued edicts concerning everything from marriage to war strategies all point towards an undeniable self-importance that is characteristic of most theists.

Now, there might be one or two religions out of the hojillions that have existed that do not self-aggrandize, but guess what?

I also find that a lot of theists want their lives to be important.

Bam, motherfucker. Get rid of the strawman.

[Utsanomiko]

I don't really buy the idea that religion exists partly because people want to feel important about themselves. I'm sure certain individuals feel very important about themselves when it comes to religion, such as the highly pious, but you make it seem as if it's a general symptom of any theist.

It's a general symptom of any Christian theist, since the Christian ideology itself makes the rather spectacular claim that the Lord God Creator of All the Vast Universe cares deeply about your personal conduct and beliefs. That claim is intrinsic to Christianity's core ideology and cannot be separated from it, and if that doesn't promote a mentality of delusionally exaggerated self-importance, what does?

Now you can argue that this is a "chicken and egg" situation and it may well be, but you can't say that you can't describe cosmic self-importance as a symptom of Christians in general when cosmic self-importance is written right into the Christian ideology.

Couple that with the belief in the 'reward' of heaven and you've got a whole mess of attempted rationalizations of human fate being polarized into eternal damnation versus eternal paradise. Oh sure, they can go on and on about how 'god loves us' that such a setup is entirely our creation and entirely up to us to pick god over hell, but it still boils down to a black & white dilemma. Nobody deserves an eternity of punishment for a life of sin, but why the hell should anybody get to live forever in perfection just for doing what your told?

I think Christianity is more about keeping people in order than self-importance, although much of it relies on keeping them in order by appealing to self-importance. The greatest being in creation loves them, and if they do what they're told they'll get everything they want, because by golly they deserve it. This was of course especially effective in pre-industrial times when 'worldly' happiness was considered non-existent and anything not back-breaking or shit-encrusted was heavenly; who wouldn't be willing to serve as a good little mule when a veritable Treasure Island awaits at the end?

[Rye]

Blasphemy, the unforgivable sin, from my understanding is the prior knowledge of Gods truth and yet actively working against it. Whereas other types of sin are self directed even when willful, blasphemy is attacking god and knowing what you're doing. Being ignorant of his truths and going after him isn't okay but you are redeemable, which is why Saul turned around and then became Paul.

It's a polemic against the people that didn't believe that aspect of the christian religion and outwardly spoke against it. The prior acceptence of it as truth is not required anywhere. Me saying "the holy ghost blows goats" is indeed an unforgivable sin, so I encourage everyone to say that.

[Vyraeth]

In my previous argument I used the omnipotent deity label due to my specific (and, honestly, fucking obvious) focus on Christians

Well what's "fucking obvious" is that you associate the term theist with Christians, which is fairly understandable given the amount of Christians in the world (I believe 2 billion Catholics alone, coupled with millions of other protestant denomations -- I'm fairly sure Christians make up the largest religious body in the world).

Bam, motherfucker. Get rid of the strawman.

Yeah, I didn't mean to intentionally strawman you, so let me reconcile that.

Indeed, after considering what you've said, I'm starting to wonder why I objected in the first place. There is a huge element of self-importance involved in every religion, even ones without deities.

When thinking of my reply to you, I began to think of psychics, ghost hunters, and other people who subscribe to supernatural thoughts. Now, beyond the people who are there to obviously scam it and make a quick buck on gullible people, there are people who genuinely believe it and I think it has to do with feeling special.

"Oh, I can see ghosts, I can hear dead people, I can read people's minds etc." But ask them why it's them that can do it, they simply reply that they're "gifted" or some such other thing.

What a way for self validation, indeed.

[Vyraeth]

Just a quick note, my post gives off the impression that I'm confusing religion with supernatural thought. What I'm aiming at is a belief of the supernatural in general, which covers everything from ghost seers or theists.

[Ar-Adunakhor]

Well what's "fucking obvious" is that you associate the term theist with Christians, which is fairly understandable given the amount of Christians in the world (I believe 2 billion Catholics alone, coupled with millions of other protestant denomations -- I'm fairly sure Christians make up the largest religious body in the world).

I associate it with deity worship in general, as the term is defined. I was referring to Christians there because that was the religion the person being discussed followed.

[Vyraeth]

I associate it with deity worship in general, as the term is defined.

OK, I mean it's you we're discussing, so obviously I'll take your word for it.

I was referring to Christians there because that was the religion the person being discussed followed.

Be that as it may, it doesn't mean you came across clear in that regard. You started off by discussing all theists, and hell your initial reply asked me how many fundies I knew, giving the impression that you were subconsciously grouping all theists into the fundie category.

It certainly could of been a reading error on my part, I make mistakes.

Regardless, if you have anything else to say, I'll let you get the final reply. Our discussion is over so further replies would just clutter the thread more, and I personally, am still interested in seeing the results of this and the BrandonMustang thread.

[Utsanomiko]

I sure do wish that debate would continue; it was refreshing to see religious ethics openly scrutinized without severe emotional outbursts, yet it's been days since Mike really hit the nail on the head about the uselessness of scriptural guidelines to basic material ethics to simply function in the real world. Can no fundamentalist honestly answer the 'why' question faith, or admit to their disconnection from religious ethics?

Well, I suppose they wouldn't be fundamentalists in such case.

[RIPP_n_WIPE]

Blasphemy, the unforgivable sin, from my understanding is the prior knowledge of Gods truth and yet actively working against it. Whereas other types of sin are self directed even when willful, blasphemy is attacking god and knowing what you're doing. Being ignorant of his truths and going after him isn't okay but you are redeemable, which is why Saul turned around and then became Paul.

It's a polemic against the people that didn't believe that aspect of the christian religion and outwardly spoke against it. The prior acceptence of it as truth is not required anywhere. Me saying "the holy ghost blows goats" is indeed an unforgivable sin, so I encourage everyone to say that.

Erm that doesn't exactly apply. Many people in the bible didn't believe Israels god was real and were redeemed. Blasphemy, while it can refer to any defamation of God, in the sense of being unforgivable, is restricted only to those who truly know what they are doing by blaspheming god. In addition, it is not merely defamation of his character but also is a heart condition in which on sets themselves against him, similar to what satan did in the garden. And since human beings do not have the capacity to read the hearts of others we can't decide how a person might be affected by their sin.

[RIPP_n_WIPE]

First off to Brandon. I miss wrote what I intended to say. I was basically along the lines of what you said, law being taken literally but the judges deciding on special or specific cases.

As for the whole death thing. The wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23). Ie all sin results in death. Now that doesn't mean that it's an insta kill. We are dying from the day we're born. We're born into sin. We can't avoid it. It's akin to a genetic disease. That's why we get old our bodies break down and we die. That our "natural" deaths are the result of sin. It's not stealing a cookie and being smitten right then and there. That sin is willful action. There is the sin we all possess and can't avoid and then there are sins we commit as a result of living. We need forgiveness for both though the later requires more since it was willful act.

Blasphemy, the unforgivable sin, from my understanding is the prior knowledge of Gods truth and yet actively working against it. Whereas other types of sin are self directed even when willful, blasphemy is attacking god and knowing what you're doing. Being ignorant of his truths and going after him isn't okay but you are redeemable, which is why Saul turned around and then became Paul.

Cool man. That is a lot more in line with what I believe (I dunno about the death is a disease analogy but I get what you are saying). Can I ask what specific denomination you are (or if you belong to a specific denomination)?

Thanks dude. I usually don't tell my denomination because doing so will often get you lambasted (Catholics have pedophilic priests, Baptists once supported slavery, CJCLS/JW you're not really christians, Protestants split up almost immediately after freeing themselves of the pope and so on). If I feel the need to I will do so in private.

[Rye]

Erm that doesn't exactly apply. Many people in the bible didn't believe Israels god was real and were redeemed.

So? It's not exactly one book with one message and one set of rules.

Blasphemy, while it can refer to any defamation of God, in the sense of being unforgivable, is restricted only to those who truly know what they are doing by blaspheming god. In addition, it is not merely defamation of his character but also is a heart condition in which on sets themselves against him, similar to what satan did in the garden. And since human beings do not have the capacity to read the hearts of others we can't decide how a person might be affected by their sin.

I know full well what I'm doing when I piss all over the holy spirit, as do most if not all people that blaspheme it. I don't have to set myself "against him" and believe it's realistic in order to blaspheme it, just not revere it, openly or not.

[RIPP_n_WIPE]

I know full well what I'm doing when I piss all over the holy spirit, as do most if not all people that blaspheme it. I don't have to set myself "against him" and believe it's realistic in order to blaspheme it, just not revere it, openly or not.

What you are referring to is common run of the mill blasphemy. You would need to knowingly oppose him, his organization and so on in order to commit the irredeemable form of blasphemy. To me the depth is quite intense as most of those who committed most grievous of sins suffered direct divine judgement, at least in the Hebrew scriptures.

So? It's not exactly one book with one message and one set of rules.

While this may appear to be true from a standpoint. It does have a common theme and a common law, which through out the presentation of which develops throughout the bible.

[Darth Wong]

I know full well what I'm doing when I piss all over the holy spirit, as do most if not all people that blaspheme it. I don't have to set myself "against him" and believe it's realistic in order to blaspheme it, just not revere it, openly or not.

What you are referring to is common run of the mill blasphemy. You would need to knowingly oppose him, his organization and so on in order to commit the irredeemable form of blasphemy. To me the depth is quite intense as most of those who committed most grievous of sins suffered direct divine judgement, at least in the Hebrew scriptures.

Bullshit. None of the blasphemers in the Bible ever said anything as insulting or dismissive about God as what I say in an average week. How many of them said that not only is he not real, but he's actually a fucking stupid idea? How many of them said that if he were real, he'd be a huge asshole and a disgusting tyrant? How many of them said that every one of his anointed prophets is a lying idiot? You're just making up distinctions where none exist, in order to explain why people like me haven't suffered The Divine Wrath.