Was Jesus a suicide?

[kyser_soze]

Can I be really honest...

I never really did. I do appreciate the difference when being sensible, but can't help help it whenever someone like rhymnrzn comes out of the woodwork and starts attempting to give me a 90th-rate bible study class I still think belief in God in a modern human is no different to believing in a volcano spirit but do accept that there is a philosophical difference between the two.

However, you wait...my Swing Bin Cult will come to dominate the 3rd millienium. I SHALL RULE THE WORLD!!! BWAH-HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

 

[onemonkey]

"Was he a suicide"?

no because he isn't dead

 

[onemonkey]

Just as an aside on the QT/randomness point. Einstein, because of his belief in God,

einstein didn't believe in god.. much like mc hawking he just used the metaphor from time to time..

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
-- Albert Einstein, 24 March 1954

 

[angry bob]

Can I be really honest...
I never really did. I do appreciate the difference when being sensible, but can't help help it whenever someone like rhymnrzn comes out of the woodwork and starts attempting to give me a 90th-rate bible study class

Ah ... well that I can understand.

I still think belief in God in a modern human is no different to believing in a volcano spirit but do accept that there is a philosophical difference between the two.

Man ... you had to go ruin it! Whatdya mean 'volcano spirit'? We're back to the tooth fairy again! Beilief in god in a modern human is essentially a statement saying "i believe the universe and existence have meaning". While this is entirley debatable ... it is not on the same level as believing in a spirit who lives in a volcano, a fairy who purchases teeth in a unusual manner, a fat guy who climbs down peoples chimneys or a giant pasta-based monster invented by some card on the internet!!

And I'm not sure what 'modern' has to do with it. Humanity is essentially still no closer to discovering the origins of life, the universe and everything than it ever was. Except that we can be pretty sure that there was an origin.

 

[angry bob]

einstein didn't believe in god.. much like mc hawking he just used the metaphor from time to time..

He was an agnostic.

 

[citydreams]

Poor baby jesus

 

[Belushi]

it is not on the same level as believing in a spirit who lives in a volcano, a fairy who purchases teeth in a unusual manner, a fat guy who climbs down peoples chimneys or a giant pasta-based monster invented by some card on the

Oh yes it is

 

[citydreams]

Not really,

god is the answer to questions that have no other meaning.

I believe in god till someone proves me otherwise. Why take chances by offending the big cheese?

 

[Belushi]

Why take chances by offending the big cheese?

Nah, fuck him. Even if I believed there was a god I still dont understand why anyone would worship him.

Any being that created people and then wanted them to worship him has got a screw loose to start with

 

[kyser_soze]

Beilief in god in a modern human is essentially a statement saying "i believe the universe and existence have meaning". While this is entirley debatable ... it is not on the same level as believing in a spirit who lives in a volcano,

Y'see, I don't think that's what most people who believe in a.n.God actually think. They don't believe in some divine thing that gives meaning, they believe in an actual entity that exists and that they will meet and who directly intervenes in the actions and affairs of humans. These people actually believe that God is a guy with a beard. I mean come on - do you really believe that cretionists have such an abstracted view of God as that lovely, humanist variant you speak of? I can't see such a God telling them to go and smite the Iraqites and the sodomites and the liberalites, can you? I also doubt that the Hassidic Jew moved from the occupied territories or the Islamic suicide bomber has such a benevolent view of what Godhead is.

 

[citydreams]

Nah, fuck him. Even if I believed there was a god I still dont understand why anyone would worship him.

Any being that created people and then wanted them to worship him has got a screw loose to start with

Worship is worthwhile because it's an expression of love. Love is worthwhile as an act in itself (for me) because I believe that love is a pure force and on a level with mystic notions of god/deity whatever. Don't get me wrong, I don't get down on my knees or anything. For me it is religion that is wrong, not god.

 

[Belushi]

You being an atheist shouldn't preclude you from understanding the philosophical differences between god and the tooth fairy.

The philosophical difference is unimportant compared to the similarity between the two, that they are both fantasies.

 

[angry bob]

Oh yes it is

What've you?

Escaped from a pantomime?

 

[Belushi]

Worship is worthwhile because it's an expression of love.

If you loved someone would you want them to worship you?

 

[Belushi]

What've you?

Escaped from a pantomime?

Aye, a panto called 'theology'

 

[angry bob]

The philosophical difference is unimportant compared to the similarity between the two, that they are both fantasies.

How do you know that?

By what method did you arrive at that conclusion?

Was it the same method in each case?

It may be fantasy that existence has meaning ... or it may not. How the fuck would you know?

 

[Belushi]

How do you know that?

By what method did you arrive at that conclusion?

Was it the same method in each case?

It may be fantasy that existence has meaning ... or it may not. How the fuck would you know?

Your the one making the claim, its up to you to prove it (and real evidence please - no rhetoric!)

Until you can prove it I'll do as I do with all superstition - dismiss it as the fantasy it so obviously is.

 

[angry bob]

Y'see, I don't think that's what most people who believe in a.n.God actually think. They don't believe in some divine thing that gives meaning, they believe in an actual entity that exists and that they will meet and who directly intervenes in the actions and affairs of humans. These people actually believe that God is a guy with a beard. I mean come on - do you really believe that cretionists have such an abstracted view of God as that lovely, humanist variant you speak of? I can't see such a God telling them to go and smite the Iraqites and the sodomites and the liberalites, can you? I also doubt that the Hassidic Jew moved from the occupied territories or the Islamic suicide bomber has such a benevolent view of what Godhead is.

Ah well .far be it from me to define the views of most people. I'd agree that the idea of god having a beard is a little simple minded. Personally I don't even take that sort of meaning from the bible but I suppose there are many that do.

I hasten to reiterate that I don't believe in god, as described in the bible or elsewhere, but I do have respect for those that do. (or at least those who don't take a riduculously simplistic and narrow minded view)

 

[angry bob]

Your the one making the claim, its up to you to prove it (and real evidence please - no rhetoric!)

Until you can prove it I'll do as I do with all superstition - dismiss it as the fantasy it so obviously is.

I'm not making any claims.

You however, are declaring existence to be meaningless. Please prove it now (and real evidence please - no rhetoric)

Until you can ... I'll blah blah blah ...

 

[Belushi]

I'm not making any claims.

You however, are declaring existence to be meaningless. Please prove it now (and real evidence please - no rhetoric)

Until you can ... I'll blah blah blah ...

But its not up to me to prove it, I'm not the one claiming something as far fatched that theres fairies at the bottom of your garden, or existence has meaning.

Your making the claim - show me the beef.

 

[Belushi]

I'm not making any claims.

Yes you are - existence has meaning - please show me your evidence.

 

[angry bob]

Yes you are - existence has meaning - please show me your evidence.

No I'm not. I have at no point made this claim. What I have done is argue its validity as a theory of existence (for want of a better word).

Personally I'm agnostic. I believe it is impossible to know one way or another. Or perhaps that I haven't the wisdom to figure it out. One or the other.

Your position is more extreme. You say existence having meaning is far fetched? Why? Why not say that meaningless existence is more far-fetched?

As far as this proof business goes. It's next to impossible to proove anything beyond direct observations and even those cannot be trusted. A ball, when thrown, moves through the air in an arc? I have directly observed that to be true. However, some would say that in actuality it moves through the air in a wave of exceedingly small wavelength. Which is truth? The latter stems from some very far-fetched notions that have nevertheless led to the greatest revolution of science ever. Prove the Schrodinger equation to be true you say? Can't be done. Doesn't mean it aint. All we can do is observe the effects as predicted by theory and see if they agree.

Now we have two theories. Meaningless existence and meaningfull existence. How precisely might one go about quantifying the effects of each on observables?

 

[angry bob]

But its not up to me to prove it, I'm not the one claiming something as far fatched that theres fairies at the bottom of your garden, or existence has meaning.

Your making the claim - show me the beef.

YOU are making the claim. That god is a fantasy. I made no claims one way or the other.

 

[citydreams]

If you loved someone would you want them to worship you?

I try not to want of anything other than what is necessary. You are still making assumptions, that He (the god you have in mind) wants to be worshiped. Replace 'wants' with 'deserves'. Does that make any difference?

 

[phildwyer]

Y'see, I don't think that's what most people who believe in a.n.God actually think. They don't believe in some divine thing that gives meaning, they believe in an actual entity that exists and that they will meet and who directly intervenes in the actions and affairs of humans. These people actually believe that God is a guy with a beard. I mean come on - do you really believe that cretionists have such an abstracted view of God as that lovely, humanist variant you speak of? I can't see such a God telling them to go and smite the Iraqites and the sodomites and the liberalites, can you? I also doubt that the Hassidic Jew moved from the occupied territories or the Islamic suicide bomber has such a benevolent view of what Godhead is.

Theology is an incredibly complex subject, and you can't expect people who haven't studied it to grasp all its intricacies. So yes, most religious believers probably do conceive of God in the terms that Hegel called "picture thinking." The same is true of most believers in science, who accept its claims on faith, and who have never read Bacon or Darwin. It is also true of most Marxists, who haven't read "Capital." (I'd argue that religion is an amazingly effective mode of picture thinking, in which the "pictures," or myths, do an excellent job of conveying the basic meaning of the abstract concepts, but that's besides the point). The point is that the rudimentary grasp of a theory by the majority of its adherents does not invalidate the theory itself. Furthermore, the innaccurate and reactionary interpretations of religious texts to which you refer are best countered by offering the correct interpretations, not by absconding from the field altogether, and certainly not by patronizing ribaldry.

 

[kyser_soze]

What I see here is:

blahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblah
blahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblah
blahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblah
blahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblah
blahblahblahagreeing with MY interpretationahblahblahblahblah

'correct interpretation'

Who the FUCK do you think you are phil. What exactly is a 'correct' interpretation then? Would I be right in thinking that there is a high probability of that 'correct' version being one you agree with or write yourself?

Well that would be a shock wouldn't it?

It must really pain you that there are so many Xtians out there who insist on sticking with their 'incorrect' versions when all they need to do is read your version and suddenly they'd understand that God is about giving meaning to the universe as opposed to what there is now.

 

[phildwyer]

What I see here is:

blahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblah
blahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblah
blahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblah
blahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblah
blahblahblahagreeing with MY interpretationahblahblahblahblah

'correct interpretation'

Who the FUCK do you think you are phil. What exactly is a 'correct' interpretation then? Would I be right in thinking that there is a high probability of that 'correct' version being one you agree with or write yourself?

Well that would be a shock wouldn't it?

It must really pain you that there are so many Xtians out there who insist on sticking with their 'incorrect' versions when all they need to do is read your version and suddenly they'd understand that God is about giving meaning to the universe as opposed to what there is now.

Ach, go on back to the "Cum in Mouth" thread, you're making some sense over there...

 

[kyser_soze]

No. All you've written there is that theology is complex, you understand it and all would be great in the garden if only the thick people followed the 'right' version of believing in God. And who's version would that be then? Pat Robertson's? Or your lovely humanist version of belief? Only you've written about it using very good language and sentence constrcution to make what is essentially a very simple point more sophisticated than it actually is.

 

[citydreams]

What I see here is:
blahblahblahblah

you have such a huge bee in your bonnet it's suprising if there's any room for brains.

stop criticising people for their beliefs. you're making yourself look really petty

 

[angry bob]

Who the FUCK do you think you are phil. What exactly is a 'correct' interpretation then? Would I be right in thinking that there is a high probability of that 'correct' version being one you agree with or write yourself?

It seems to me (and I don't have the education to understand most of what Phil writes believe me!) that what he meant by the 'correct interpretation' is the one in which god isn't sitting on a cloud with a white robe and a beard.

Now are you going to argue that he's wrong? I'm sure that there are a lot of debatable interpretations of the bible but I would go as far as saying that an intelligent reading of the bible would not result in the 'cloud and beard' interpretation. I'd even go so far as to say that it would be incorrect.

Now that may be arrogant of me, but to quote a certain poster on the thread
"so what if I'm arrogant?"