Blasphemy a crime under UN resolution

[LonelyPilgrim]

God A and B are the same god. Islam regards itself as the final revelation of the Abrhamic tradition; as does Christianity.

Well no actually, the Christian God is trinitarian, being Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Allah is unitarian, one person who cannot interact with himself.

Very much depends on which Christians you ask. A couple thousand years of internecine wars and persecutions still haven't settle the issue, Nicene Creed to the contrary.

[LonelyPilgrim]

Whether that God exists or not is immaterial, it's against the rules of their religion, of their club if you will.

Well, that's my point. I'm not beholden to the rules of a club I haven't joined.

And in a previous thread I argued that a non-believer cannot sin against a deity they don't believe in which is worshipped by a religion they're not signed-up to.

Laws or no laws.

But the resolution doesn't make it a sin, it makes it illegal. I think speed limits are stupid, but I still follow them more-or-less due to fear of the coercive power of the state. I mean, sure, you can say you can't blaspheme against Allah since you don't believe in Allah, but if you happen to be Saudi Arabia when you do something that they might consider blaspheming, I can't imagine your arguments being strong enough to stop the scimitar swinging toward your neck. Pissing people off isn't very smart when doing so causes them to take a rather dim view toward your continued existence. As a general principle, anyway.

[Andy Monkey B]

It's an amusing outcome that was produced towards the end of my tenure as a religious chappie. That is: Any sort of personal God...you've got a two way interaction. If one excludes omniscience and omnipotence and replaces them with merely 'extreme power' and 'remarkable intellect' then you can happily arrive at an idea wherein god might be worthy of praise and a relationship with...but not necessarily to be always obeyed, or always believed correct!

...

It is not difficult to see the powerful attraction of the Quakers to someone of a mildly inquisitive and sceptical nature. The whole 'not making overpowering claims about things' is quite endearing.

Bluntly, this seems a little bit like 'pick'n'mix' theology. "I think this sounds like a good idea so I'll worship it". Believing something hard enough doesn't make it true.

Yes this does apply to me, so:

Were one to seriously investigate it... I suspect the Christian religion wouldn't stand.

There is in fact a very easy way to investigate the validity of the Christian religion. Did Jesus rise from the dead or not? If not, the Christian's "faith is in vain", and "we are of all people most to be pitied" (1 cor 15). Christianity cannot be true, as it becomes only the following of a wise, but dead philosopher, there is nothing after death, and there is no judgement for sins. That isn't Christianity at all!

If Jesus did rise from the dead, proving his own predictions, then surely his claims to be God must be true (as demonstrated by his power), and Christianity as a trinitarian religion stands.

There seems to me to be no alternative. So if you want to kill Christianity, go for the resurrection, but maybe not in this topic.

Very much depends on which Christians you ask. A couple thousand years of internecine wars and persecutions still haven't settle the issue, Nicene Creed to the contrary.

And each time those claiming otherwise have had the flaws in their theology pointed out and their sect didn't prosper. It's not unexpected to see the same heresies doing the rounds, in fact even age-old gnosticism has come back in a popular novel recently.

A little disappointed there's nobody defending Islam on the forum at the moment. Maybe some day...

[Frank]

Andy, it certainly is (looking at things from an outsider's starting point) pick'n'mix theology. I can't see any other way of looking at it. Which Christianity is it? How many virgin births? Jesus: philosopher, prophet or messiah? All of the above? Raising the dead: possible, impossible, highly probable or highly improbable and all with little or lots of evidence? Jesus was last seen in the Middle East, or did he show up later-on in South America?

Being utterly clear, if one wants to assess the pick'n'mix feel of religion, one need only approach it from an historian's perspective. Or a sociologist's. Validity is, of course, an entirely different question!

* As for the power of belief: Yep, faith and belief matters little in relation to reality except in one's own head. An insightful statement? Perhaps.

Were one to seriously investigate it... I suspect the Christian religion wouldn't stand.

There is in fact a very easy way to investigate the validity of the Christian religion. Did Jesus rise from the dead or not? If not, the Christian's "faith is in vain", and "we are of all people most to be pitied" (1 cor 15). Christianity cannot be true, as it becomes only the following of a wise, but dead philosopher, there is nothing after death, and there is no judgement for sins. That isn't Christianity at all!

It certainly is for a great many people. It sounds to me like a variation on the old No True Scotsman fallacy. But then it's much more likely a semantic disagreement. When is someone 'not a Christian'? When they assert that they belief incompatibly with your definition? When they say they aren't? When *is* someone a Christian (in general, of no particular denomination)? Would that be when they profess to be a Christian?

I'm afraid the latter case really strikes me as the only one permissable. Elsewise we'd have to take the earliest form or the ones specifically endowed with the Holy Spirit...(or a handful of other methods). Not being able to detect anything mystical going on would be a major stumbling block, bringing us back to either a semantic/definition disagreement, or an impasse!

If Jesus did rise from the dead, proving his own predictions, then surely his claims to be God must be true (as demonstrated by his power), and Christianity as a trinitarian religion stands.

There seems to me to be no alternative. So if you want to kill Christianity, go for the resurrection, but maybe not in this topic.

Well, the resurrection does appear to be an extravagant and highly retold anecdote. In terms of evidence, one would hope a sensible inclination would say "Okay, sure, Jesus'' ressurection is fine enough to convince the Apostle's, but all they gave me was their word at a distance of three thousand years. Yet there's this other serpent chappie who seems to be a cunning liar..."

From a stance possessing integrity, I'd be inclined to suggest that Christianity ought to be relabelled 'tradition' and leave any sort of comment about reality, authority or plausibility out of hand until we get some actual testable, repeatable or otherwise endearing miracles**. At such a stage then we can have honest, supported faith in something plausible, and not in something that could equally be a lie, innaccurate, a hoax, a badly mistold account or something altogether more sinister/mundane. At which point one might well recall any commentary on the bearing of belief and faith... (see above marked *)

** Elsewise someone better get David Icke on the phone, I've got some catching up to do!

[Andy Monkey B]

Andy, it certainly is (looking at things from an outsider's starting point) pick'n'mix theology. I can't see any other way of looking at it. Which Christianity is it? How many virgin births? Jesus: philosopher, prophet or messiah? All of the above? Raising the dead: possible, impossible, highly probable or highly improbable and all with little or lots of evidence? Jesus was last seen in the Middle East, or did he show up later-on in South America?

Being utterly clear, if one wants to assess the pick'n'mix feel of religion, one need only approach it from an historian's perspective. Or a sociologist's. Validity is, of course, an entirely different question!

Well quite, if there were no God and all theology was made up of the wisdom of men, then an outside approach could rightly class the whole lot as pick'n'mix. However it is a mistake in the first instance to apply human wisdom to the knowledge of God, as surely the creator cannot be understood by the creation? How can something create that which is more complicated than itself?

If God were to let Himself be 'found' by human wisdom and science, where would we end up? Life would be a science and philosophy exam and salvation would be for the intelligent (although on a forum full of St Andrews students, this may not sound like a bad idea). Also, as you have yourself identified, this lying serpent chappie is very good at using human wisdom to deceive us (Genesis 3 obviously), so we would end up completely lost, not knowing what was truth and without anything to put our faith in.

Therefor surely any knowledge of the existence of God must come from His own revelation to us? And then the question we must ask to discern the existence of a creator (although only of a creator who wills his/her own revelation to the creation - otherwise we are blind), is whether in history there have been any verifiable attempts by a powerful intelligence to make itself known. Once we have discerned this, it only remains to ascertain the nature of this God (through the revelation), and act accordingly.

A Christian view of God's revelation, is that He is revealed through His Word. The Word of God is shorthand for the revelation of God, and is done through Jesus and the Bible.

Well, the resurrection does appear to be an extravagant and highly retold anecdote. In terms of evidence, one would hope a sensible inclination would say "Okay, sure, Jesus'' ressurection is fine enough to convince the Apostle's, but all they gave me was their word at a distance of three thousand years. Yet there's this other serpent chappie who seems to be a cunning liar..."

To clarify, the apostles and evangelists (the writers of the new testament) wrote around 2000 years ago, rather than 3000.

As to the crucifixion and resurrection in revelation, indeed all we have are the writings of the apostles. The balance here then is to determine if these writings (The Bible), constitute a revelation, or a fairy story. Not arguing this very clearly, but frankly, the only way to determine the answer here is to read the new testament. I can argue the historical reliability, the completeness of the accounts etc., and while that might show that Christianity isn't unreasonable, it certainly wouldn't reveal God to anyone (as explained above). Feel free to come back at me on that one.

When *is* someone a Christian? Would that be when they profess to be a Christian?
...
From a stance possessing integrity, I'd be inclined to suggest that Christianity ought to be relabelled 'tradition'

You seem to have done these the wrong way around. Yes, if Christianity was merely a tradition, a culture etc., then it would be correct to label as Christian those who profess to be such.

However, from a Christian standpoint, Jesus asserts that "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the Kingdom of Heaven,", so clearly not everyone who professes to be a Christian will be saved. Therefore it is not the profession of which religion which matters, but having saving faith in Jesus' sacrifice (which arguably necessitates a triune God).

[RedCelt69]

How can something create that which is more complicated than itself?

So the creator god is more complicated than the entire universe? But if God made man in his own image... (sound of head exploding)

And what made this creator god? Something yet more complicated? If this god was more complicated than this universe's creator god, why bother creating god lite? And what made the creator of the creator of the universe? Why bother?

The usual get-out clause for an infinite number of creator gods creating each other (getting progressively less complex) is that god sprang magically out of nothing. Well... if the creator god can come from nothing, so can the universe. Using the above logic, it becomes more plausible, not less, as the universe is supposedly less complex than the creator god.

Confused? You will be. Join us next week for more fun and frolics with the Tates and the Campbells (cue theme tune to Soap)

[Senethro]

What is the point of debating all this theology? Until any believers come up with some credible evidence that their SkyMan is more probable than any others then its just a waste of time.

[macgamer]

And what made this creator god? Something yet more complicated?

God is said to be a necessary being, or the uncaused cause of the contigent universe.

[RedCelt69]

And what made this creator god? Something yet more complicated?

God is said to be a necessary being, or the uncaused cause of the contigent universe.

You do realise that that makes no sense whatsoever, don't you?

[Andy Monkey B]

How can something create that which is more complicated than itself?

So the creator god is more complicated than the entire universe? But if God made man in his own image... (sound of head exploding)

God made man in His own image, he did not make exact copies of himself. A bit like an artist painting a picture. Or an architect making a model. It's not an exact copy, but it represents the original.

And what made this creator god? Something yet more complicated? If this god was more complicated than this universe's creator god, why bother creating god lite? And what made the creator of the creator of the universe? Why bother?

The usual get-out clause for an infinite number of creator gods creating each other (getting progressively less complex) is that god sprang magically out of nothing. Well... if the creator god can come from nothing, so can the universe. Using the above logic, it becomes more plausible, not less, as the universe is supposedly less complex than the creator god.

Who said the creator was created? Or even had an origin? The logic runs: Whatever begins has a cause. If the Universe began (which it seemingly did, as we cannot perceive anything beyond a certain point, known as the 'Big Bang'), then is presumably has a cause. Maybe this cause was an infinite-universe-generator, maybe it was an intelligent being. Either could possibly exist in a state of timeless existence. Although as the outside of the universe is unobservable and presumably doesn't correspond to known rules, we can't really take a guess at the probability of what is or isn't there.

[Andy Monkey B]

What is the point of debating all this theology? Until any believers come up with some credible evidence that their SkyMan is more probable than any others then its just a waste of time.

However it is a mistake in the first instance to apply human wisdom to the knowledge of God, as surely the creator cannot be understood by the creation? How can something create that which is more complicated than itself?If God were to let Himself be 'found' by human wisdom and science, where would we end up? Life would be a science and philosophy exam and salvation would be for the intelligent (although on a forum full of St Andrews students, this may not sound like a bad idea).

It's maybe a bit silly to quote oneself. I apologise

[Frank]

I had a lovely pointwise riposte, Andy, but I'm afraid the Omnissiah gobbled it up.

Praise to the Machine-God, indeed.

(I'll try to put up a better one than this soon.)
You mentioned a universe in which God could be scientifically found. One in which salvation is achieved through intelligence and in which you seemed generally unimpressed with. Why would that be the case?

On the point of what Christians believe and where they get their Revelation from: Catholics and Mormons are quite ardent that another aspect of God's Truth can be learned not from the Bible, and not directly from Jesus/the Holy Spirit/God Himself, but from the Church itself. As 'twas always explained to me (and how I understood it): the Catholic's don't see the Church as a megalithic interfering Imaginary Friend Club, they see it as the communion (excepting the obvious Sacrement of Communion), the legacy of Jesus. The Church is the important bit, not the Bible, that was a product of 'the church', the legacy. The shared community of Christ is highly important to a huge number of Christians. We view them as Christians too, though. And it's a core tennet of many folks' belief. Catholics are encouraged to seek solace in the community, not in the book.

As you said: Salvation isn't just for intelligent people.

But then, the thrusting question would be this: If Salvation isn't for people who've earned it through some sort of sensible navigation of morality and ethics, but rather have simply elected to subscribe sincerely to a mysteriously odd notion, that of Jesus' sacrifice, is that better?

No specifics as to what actually constitutes sincerity in this regard, and plenty of debate on everything else. Yes, God certainly cleared that one up. His communication skills are tremendous, as is his reasoning. Instead of making sensible communication with the human race in an easy to comprehend way that wouldn't be confused with 'talking to yourself' (sorry, praying) or 'going mad' (believing in an invisble friend who's always with you), he leaves his existence as largely nebulous and almost entirely up to your own choice. Except, of course, from telling you that when you're in a state seemingly indistinguishable from mild and very slight delusion you'll know you have 'found God'.



"I'm right because I feel I'm right"

Although as the outside of the universe is unobservable and presumably doesn't correspond to known rules, we can't really take a guess at the probability of what is or isn't there.

Praise be to such magnificent mysteries. Let's start a prayer group and see if we can't have it reveal some knowledge from outside of reality. Ia ia Yog-Sothoth!

A more serious note

Genuinely, it strikes me that you rejection of a 'knowable by science god' is based upon the dislike of the implications of such a thing. Now I won't go so far as to accuse you of a take it or leave it approach to cosmologies...but is there really much of a reason why a creator shouldn't be detectable. We mightn't be able to understand much of it. But we ought to be able to follow the trail up to a point.

Also, is the only reason anyone worships the creator because of the religion which is potentially disjoint from it?

(The Demiurge approach of Gnosticism seems endearing on such considerations. God is 'all powerful', but he didn't actuall create it all... he got a contractor)

[Senethro]

What is the point of debating all this theology? Until any believers come up with some credible evidence that their SkyMan is more probable than any others then its just a waste of time.

However it is a mistake in the first instance to apply human wisdom to the knowledge of God, as surely the creator cannot be understood by the creation? How can something create that which is more complicated than itself?If God were to let Himself be 'found' by human wisdom and science, where would we end up? Life would be a science and philosophy exam and salvation would be for the intelligent (although on a forum full of St Andrews students, this may not sound like a bad idea).

It's maybe a bit silly to quote oneself. I apologise

So god may be unknowable. So what? Thats a good reason to completely ignore theology.

[elyettoner]

What is the point of debating all this theology? Until any believers come up with some credible evidence that their SkyMan is more probable than any others then its just a waste of time.

However it is a mistake in the first instance to apply human wisdom to the knowledge of God, as surely the creator cannot be understood by the creation? How can something create that which is more complicated than itself?If God were to let Himself be 'found' by human wisdom and science, where would we end up? Life would be a science and philosophy exam and salvation would be for the intelligent (although on a forum full of St Andrews students, this may not sound like a bad idea).

It's maybe a bit silly to quote oneself. I apologise

So god may be unknowable. So what? Thats a good reason to completely ignore theology.

Andy didn't say God was unknowable, he said the creator cannot be understood by creation.

[RedCelt69]

Andy didn't say God was unknowable, he said the creator cannot be understood by creation.

Then what is the point of the bible, if not to understand God? Or to understand God's wishes for humanity? Or to understand how to be at God's side in heaven? Or to understand that God didn't design a willy to go into a bumhole? Fer instance.

[Haunted]

The logic runs: Whatever begins has a cause.

This is common sense, not logic.
We've for over 80 years that 'cause and effect' is an outdated idea that doesn't necessarily follow in the real world.
Plenty of things exist without causes.

(Incidentally, it's nice to be having a reasonably intelligent god discussion for once)

[Humphrey]

The 'non-intelligent' conversations are fun though. Last time we had the classic comment from Senethro, 'Your God is an evil cunt and has you all Stockholm syndrome on him' which pretty much made my week.

Of course some events in Quantum physics appear to be a-causal, for example, virtual particles appear from nothing and then return back to nothing. However the idea that, through some kind of fluctuation, a universe could appear from nothing with the kind of fine tuned laws of physics that it has doesn't strike me as a good explanation. A "quantum fluctuation" can only exist because of pre-existing physical laws.

[elyettoner]

Andy didn't say God was unknowable, he said the creator cannot be understood by creation.

Then what is the point of the bible, if not to understand God? Or to understand God's wishes for humanity? Or to understand how to be at God's side in heaven? Or to understand that God didn't design a willy to go into a bumhole? Fer instance.

Andy didn't say creation cannot understand God' wishes for humanity, or how to be at God's side in heaven, or that God didn't design a willy to go into a bumhole, he said creation cannot understand God

[Senethro]

And I suppose you'll use that as a convenient excuse why you don't have to provide more evidence for yahweh than odin/zeus/etc

because thats what this comes to in the end. The supernatural, ALL teh supernatural is unevidenced. So why christianity?

[elyettoner]

And I suppose you'll use that as a convenient excuse why you don't have to provide more evidence for yahweh than odin/zeus/etc

because thats what this comes to in the end. The supernatural, ALL teh supernatural is unevidenced. So why christianity?

Well, no. Not understanding something doesn't mean denying there's evidence of its existence. I don't understand relativity, but there's evidence that it exists. I actually think it's Biblical to provide evidence for the existence of God (that is, Yahweh). To believe something without evidence may be a bit daft, to base one's life on it is sheer lunacy. Take John chapter five, for example; Jesus provides evidence for his claims to those listening to him (though I might add that that evidence was applicable in the context of Judaism in the 1st Century in the area in which Jesus spent time, not to 21st Century Britain), he doesn't just say "this is how it is, accept it." Paul is shown throughout the book of Acts using reason and debate to explain and justify his claim that Jesus Christ is the Messiah and son of the one true God. Believing without or even in contrary to evidence is not something which the Bible encourages. Nowhere does it say to "just believe".

There is evidence for a creator god and even in favour of that god being the Yahweh of the Bible. But as with evidence for everything, it can be interpreted in different ways, in which case someone's always right and someone's always wrong. Often, but not always, the outcome is determined on both sides of the debate by the belief already held by the one looking at the evidence, but this is not always the case. I'm sure Anthony Flew, for example, who may have been described by Dawkins (without evidence, funnily enough) as senile (perhaps because he defected? Doesn't do Dawkins' campaign much good), decided there was a god because of evidence, not just on a whim. Equally so, Christians have also stopped believing in the God of the Bible because of evidence.

I think what you want when you ask for evidence is proof, which is a tad unfair, don't you think? As I'm sure (or at least hope) any scientist and any philosopher would be aware, you can't prove anything. I certainly don't claim to be able to prove the existence of god. You may want to exercise scientific tests to see if God exists, yet given that God is not an empirical being that isn't possible. You might say that that's "convenient", but at the end of the day the supposition that nothing exists that isn't empirical is faith in itself.

(Edited for grammar.)