How powerful is Satan?

[Eran of Arcadia]

Because there are anachronistic messages in both the Illiad and the Bible. Messages that even if it did made sense once, now they don't.

Well, to say that is to say that the specific messages - and all of them, not just the ones you don't like - were once true but no longer. Are you prepared to argue that this is the case?

Using one as a moral guideline is one thing . Using Mythological creatures as an explanation of human behavior is something entirely different.

According to what you said above, the "something entirely different" it is, is mental illness. Well, how do you define "mental illness"?

@frob: There are, indeed, positive moral messages in the Bible. Focusing only on the parts you don't like doesn't change this fact. I have seen more people motivated to charity than to genocide by it.

 

[frob2900]

@frob: There are, indeed, positive moral messages in the Bible. Focusing only on the parts you don't like doesn't change this fact. I have seen more people motivated to charity than to genocide by it.

I'm sure there are. There are also positive moral messages in "300" and "Die Hard 4.0". Just singling out the positive ones doesn't prove they are good moral guides.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

I'm sure there are. There are also positive moral messages in "300" and "Die Hard 4.0". Just singling out the positive ones doesn't prove they are good moral guides.

You know, I will never claim that the Bible is perfect, but it does have a lot more relevance, and a lot more beneficial moral teachings, than most people who don't believe in it want to admit. But I really don't care if you don't agree.

 

[frob2900]

but it does have a lot more relevance, and a lot more beneficial moral teachings, than most people who don't believe in it want to admit.

It has that to you because you're reading it in that way. You're giving it all you've got. It's possible to find a bunch of relevant moral values in many, many things if you do that.

But the fact of the matter is that you are not doing that because you found the bible in a bookstore one day, having never heard of it, and skimming through it you were so impressed with it that you've been studying it ever since.

You are studying it (most likely) because of family tradition and/or acquiantances/life circumstances. The bible as a guide requires the huge traditional, communal and cultural apparatus of Christianity (of whatever denomination) to be really useful, since there are then enough guidelines and "patches" available to make it useful.

 

[drachasor]

You know, I will never claim that the Bible is perfect, but it does have a lot more relevance, and a lot more beneficial moral teachings, than most people who don't believe in it want to admit. But I really don't care if you don't agree.

There are passages in support of genocide in the old testament. God kinda liked his followers to kill all the unbelievers (including children).

-Drachasor

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

I actually agree that the Bible would be of little value all by itself. It is not the basis of my faith, certainly. It was not the basis of anyone's faith, really, until the Protestant Reformation more or less.

But let me ask: what is more important to you, the moral values that someone has or the source from which they obtain them?

@drachasor: I know that there are parts in which God commands His people to wipe out entire tribes. I mentioned that earlier. And I am certainly well aware that they are as much a part of the Bible as, say, the Beatitudes. But for all the harping on them we see here, they are a relatively small part.

 

[scy12]

Well, to say that is to say that the specific messages - and all of them, not just the ones you don't like - were once true but no longer. Are you prepared to argue that this is the case?



According to what you said above, the "something entirely different" it is, is mental illness. Well, how do you define "mental illness"?
.

Well, to say that is to say that the specific messages - and all of them, not just the ones you don't like - were once true but no longer. Are you prepared to argue that this is the case?

My dear sir , why are you wasting time by playing fool ?

Since you like reverse arguments so much (but i won't try to distort your sayings) , do you believe all messages of the bible or the Illiad are as significant or true today as they where before ?

According to what you said above, the "something entirely different" it is, is mental illness. Well, how do you define "mental illness"?

It uses mythology to explain human behavior. As a result even if some indentions where based on logic such logic is bound to be lost based on the reader's perception of what and who is Satan influenced " a stereotype rather than explaining human behavior based on logic.

Mental illness ?

Like a belief that Zeus is the cause of thunders only applied on a personal level.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

So . . . why do you think that believing in myths is mental illness, and how do you define mental illness?

As for your other question, I think that there are universal moral standards, and then there are changing situations in which to apply them. Some of what is found in the Bible, or the Iliad, or the Bhagavad Gita, applies to a situation in which you may find yourself; some won't, but that isn't just because of the amount of time that passed after it was written.

 

[drachasor]

@drachasor: I know that there are parts in which God commands His people to wipe out entire tribes. I mentioned that earlier. And I am certainly well aware that they are as much a part of the Bible as, say, the Beatitudes. But for all the harping on them we see here, they are a relatively small part.

Well then if you have to find the "good" passages so you have moral lessons, then isn't it better to go to the source of your morality that is telling you what passages are good and what passages are not?

-Drachasor

 

[frob2900]

I actually agree that the Bible would be of little value all by itself. It is not the basis of my faith, certainly. It was not the basis of anyone's faith, really, until the Protestant Reformation more or less.

Yep. We agree on that.

But let me ask: what is more important to you, the moral values that someone has or the source from which they obtain them?

The moral values, definitely. That's why I don't like the bible. It's not doing a good job of imparting moral values to many. Take creationists for example. Religious, yet immoral people, since they are essentially being dishonest and manipulative.

@drachasor: I know that there are parts in which God commands His people to wipe out entire tribes. I mentioned that earlier. And I am certainly well aware that they are as much a part of the Bible as, say, the Beatitudes. But for all the harping on them we see here, they are a relatively small part.

But the point is that they are there. If I am having a discussion with someone, and 90% of what I say is good and rational, but 10% of the time I'm screaming at the top of my voice about genocide, that counts. That 1/10 of my argument makes the person I'm talking to suspicious of the other 9/10.

Well then if you have to find the "good" passages so you have moral lessons, then isn't it better to go to the source of your morality that is telling you what passages are good and what passages are not?

-Drachasor

Amen.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Well then if you have to find the "good" passages so you have moral lessons, then isn't it better to go to the source of your morality that is telling you what passages are good and what passages are not?

-Drachasor

Well, yes, I would not suggest that anyone try to use the Bible as their only means of moral direction, nor that they do so at all without constant communication with the source; ie prayer. But in my experience scripture helps.

@frob: I think the vast majority of YECs are sincere and honest, just very badly mistaken. Some aren't, of course. I think also our disagreement is far deeper than merely over this particular set of writings; the question is to what degree we can rely on others, or at least their assistance, in helping to come to decisions regarding morality.

 

[puglover]

I am immune as long as I live a righteous life....and JollyRoger is an atheist. That pretty much sums it up.

Are we really immune? I mean, David was tempted by Satan to take a census of Israel.

 

[scy12]

So . . . why do you think that believing in myths is mental illness, and how do you define mental illness?
.

It is mental illness when such beliefs which are either dangerous or are terribly wrong are applied to life.

i.E

I am immune as long as I live a righteous life....and JollyRoger is an atheist. That pretty much sums it up.

Witchhunting. In this instance , we have the "influenced by Satan = Atheist".

 

[frob2900]

Well, yes, I would not suggest that anyone try to use the Bible as their only means of moral direction, nor that they do so at all without constant communication with the source; ie prayer. But in my experience scripture helps.

Does God have a barytone voice?

@frob: I think the vast majority of YECs are sincere and honest, just very badly mistaken. Some aren't, of course.

Well, I disagree on the YECs. But the disagreement is irrelevant since both you and I know that there are many immoral Christians (who read the bible) apart from the YECs.

I think also our disagreement is far deeper than merely over this particular set of writings; the question is to what degree we can rely on others, or at least their assistance, in helping to come to decisions regarding morality.

What? Other people are essential to our morality. They pretty much define it. Talking to people about that kind of stuff is great. Why would you think I don't believe that? It's just the bible/christian belief system that's irrelevant to any kind of moral person.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

It is mental illness when such beliefs which are either dangerous or are terribly wrong are applied to life.i.E Witchhunting. In this instance , we have the "influenced by Satan = Atheist".

So "mental illness", according to you, is "anything that causes one to make immoral decisions"?

Does God have a barytone voice?

Well, I disagree on the YECs. But the disagreement is irrelevant since both you and I know that there are many immoral Christians (who read the bible) apart from the YECs.

Of course. And there are many very moral people who don't read the Bible or don't accept its claims.

It's just the bible/christian belief system that's irrelevant to any kind of moral person.

And there, I disagree. The Bible obviously cannot be the basis of any moral system; but really knowing what is right and wrong is not sufficient. The Bible is useful in a sense because if you accept its precepts, and if you already have a basis for moral behavior, it can help you to actually follow said beliefs. It by itself is neither necessary nor sufficient but sometimes, when one is faced with a decision to either follow the beliefs they have or to ignore them, it can help them to follow them.

 

[MobBoss]

Are we really immune? I mean, David was tempted by Satan to take a census of Israel.

Well, when the bible says to 'resist the devil and he shall flee' I would like to think we are immune as long as we are being proactive...i.e. wearing the armor of God. But you are right that in practical application, wearing that armor 24/7 is a very hard thing to do....

 

[scy12]

So "mental illness", according to you, is "anything that causes one to make immoral decisions"?

.

Wrong again. Your dialectic method won't work if you keep forgetting vital parts.

A better question would be , So "mental illness", according to you, is "anything that causes one to make immoral decisions influenced from stupid , illogical reasons such as mythology ?. Especially in today's age of information?

How would you describe the various Witchhuntings and so on ?

 

[MobBoss]

The Bible obviously cannot be the basis of any moral system;

Why not? It is pretty much the basis of my moral compass...and most likely the same of a lot of other christians. I fail to see why it cannot be the basis of a moral system at all.

 

[frob2900]

And there, I disagree. The Bible obviously cannot be the basis of any moral system; but really knowing what is right and wrong is not sufficient. The Bible is useful in a sense because if you accept its precepts, and if you already have a basis for moral behavior, it can help you to actually follow said beliefs. It by itself is neither necessary nor sufficient but sometimes, when one is faced with a decision to either follow the beliefs they have or to ignore them, it can help them to follow them.

Knowing right from wrong is not sufficient. You have to be the kind of person that acts on the "right behaviour". Anyone who is struggling with this won't find the bible useful, except as a "guilt trip" that carries with it a heck of a lot of baggage, especially for the kind of person that needs a bible for that kind of thing in the first place.

My question about God's voice was phrased as a joke, but what I really meant was, how are prayers answered? Voice? Thought? Emotion? Fax? E-Mail?

It is pretty much the basis of my moral compass..

No, MobBoss, it isn't.

 

[drachasor]

/shrug. Just paraphrasing whats in the bible about living a righteous life and the benefits thereof. As a christian, shouldnt I believe what the bible says?

But it is dependent on your interpretation, is it not? The Bible also says "Let he that is without sin cast the first stone," but I don't see you resisting the temptation to disparage atheists or other people. Given the, err, complexity integrating all passages of the bible into one moral system, shouldn't you be a bit more wary that you may have or might make a mistake? Shouldn't that make you a bit less judgmental of others? As I said, it just seems like hubris.

-Drachasor