is it part of your belief to reject data that opposes your belief?

[arthra]

vanity write:

"he says that we are under the false impression that some of the things god did (as described in the bible) are evil, just like the bear is under the false impression that you are trying to hurt it, when all you are trying to do is free it, or the baby is under the impression that the doctor is trying to hurt it, when he is only trying to treat it.

"whats your take?"
............................................

Not being a Christian myself I can sort of see that as a possible argument. But without hearing more about what was really being discussed it would be hard to comment further.

I think science is always coming up with possible hypotheses and information we didn't have before.... but the Bible as you may know was written well over a thousand years ago or so and we have to understand the context it was revealed in.

Also the languages used in the Bible should be studied so we can understand the words of the ancient language and concepts.

 

[Orias]

The rest of the book expounds on what is meant by man's "dominion" vs. God's dominion over man.

I don't think it was intended for you to have license to do as you please.

If the bible was intended to be factual then what it is meant by man's dominion vs. god's dominion is irrelevant, because it is stated that man has dominion over the earth.

What you're arguing is different, his dominion over man is quite obvious.

I read the book, I just didn't get checked out by administration.

I wasn't intending to give a thorough and lengthy dissertation on all that Mr. Levay may be about.

I think as a learned Satanist (not specifically "LaVeyan"), I would know what "Anton" Szandor LaVey "may be" about.

However there is a lot of public knowlege about him, his church, his backwards "bible" and the like. Shall we make no judgments and let our children choose whatever they like?

Of course, what he does ales in comparison to a couple thousand years of bloody violence and oppression right?

I mean after all, we are still recovering from it.

 

[thau]

We all do as we wish. As a catholic, you technically believe in free will I assume right?

Of course we all do as we wish --- and I am as grateful as you are for such a gift.

But are you suggesting there are no consequences for our choices?

Maybe you are, since we have talked before. But given what I know, I walk in fear of the Lord.

 

[Me Myself]

Of course we all do as we wish --- and I am as grateful as you are for such a gift.

But are you suggesting there are no consequences for our choices?

Maybe you are, since we have talked before. But given what I know, I walk in fear of the Lord.

Fear and faith are like water and oil. They may be on the same container, but one always takes space from the other.

 

[Orias]

But are you suggesting there are no consequences for our choices?

Maybe you are, since we have talked before. But given what I know, I walk in fear of the Lord.

If this was your argument then what of it?

Do you think that I do not walk in fear?

After a while, one learns to hold their own hand in the darkness. The lord will see you in the end.

 

[thau]

If the bible was intended to be factual then what it is meant by man's dominion vs. god's dominion is irrelevant, because it is stated that man has dominion over the earth.

As the Bible intended for a man to have dominion over his wife. To think that means, to do as he pleases (controlling, brutal, etc.) is a shallow summation. Or what are you trying to say?



I think as a learned Satanist (not specifically "LaVeyan"), I would know what "Anton" Szandor LaVey "may be" about.

Yes, I might grant you that as well. Surely our words will not cause you any discomfort then?




Of course, what he does pales in comparison to a couple thousand years of bloody violence and oppression right?

Right. Selective reporting is used by all despots and demigogues.




I mean after all, we are still recovering from it.

I’m not sure? But it is apparent a good part of the world has not yet recovered of its blindness.

 

[thau]

If this was your argument then what of it?

Do you think that I do not walk in fear?

After a while, one learns to hold their own hand in the darkness. The lord will see you in the end.

I am in no position to make a judgment on your thoughts, your good intentions or your life. I can only comment on the few words you have offered here. My best guess as this time: --- you are telling me "if there is a God he sure has not made it clear to any of us who he is or what he wants. Consequently, I will choose what appeals to my senses best, nor will I feel accountable for things that God finds displeasing, why should I?"

My response would be: If you sincerely seek the Lord, something of understanding will come your way.

Fear of the Lord is quite different than living in fear. Your implies "fear of the unknown" whereas fear of Lord implies acknowledgement, reverence, gratitude, humility and faith.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

"He that is slow to believe anything and everything is of great understanding, for the belief in one false principal is the beginning of all unwisdom"-Anton LaVey


Didn’t your guy also say something like “the whole of the law shall be do as thou wilt?”


God begs to differ.

I'd like to point out that it was not LaVey who said this, but Crowley.

 

[Orias]

As the Bible intended for a man to have dominion over his wife. To think that means, to do as he pleases (controlling, brutal, etc.) is a shallow summation. Or what are you trying to say?

Shallow but true.

But what I am saying is that if you beat my wife, you have to face my wrath.

Depending on if you have a close relationship with me, if you beat my friends wife you have to face my wrath as well.

So yes, shallow indeed.

Yes, I might grant you that as well. Surely our words will not cause you any discomfort then?

Of course not, you are enthralling

Right. Selective reporting is used by all despots and demigogues.

A keen observation.

Now lets apply it to everything and see where we get.

I’m not sure? But it is apparent a good part of the world has not yet recovered of its blindness.

My notebook says the same thing, but I wonder where you got this observation from.

I think mine is pretty obvious.

 

[thau]

I'd like to point out that it was not LaVey who said this, but Crowley.

Thank you for that, I forgot.

I used to know that, but it's been awhile.

That quote of Crowley's is a subtle, yet enormous deception, IMO. It sounds so harmless.

 

[Me Myself]

Fear of the Lord is quite different than living in fear. Your implies "fear of the unknown" whereas fear of Lord implies acknowledgement, reverence, gratitude, humility and faith.

Then "fear" is a VERY improper word.

fear has nothing to do with gratitude, comprehension/acknowledgement or humility.

Faith is to fear what light is to darkness.

 

[Orias]

Then "fear" is a VERY improper word.

fear has nothing to do with gratitude, comprehension/acknowledgement or humility.

Faith is to fear what light is to darkness.

Very true, but fear is something that ultimately applies to how one's actions may affect themselves or others which can be transcribed to being fearful of god.

 

[Orias]

Thank you for that, I forgot.

I used to know that, but it's been awhile.

That quote of Crowley's is a subtle, yet enormous deception, IMO. It sounds so harmless.

This doesn't excuse you

 

[thau]

So yes, shallow indeed.

You still have not given me a satisfactory interpretation of what you think Scripture meant by God giving man dominion over the sky, the land, the birds, and the sea.

----------------------------------------

Selective reporting is used by all despots and demagogues.

A keen observation. Now let’s apply it to everything and see where we get.

So are you suggesting Christianity is false, and so is their God, because we have great sins in our past? Hint: we are weak willed humans, too, but that does not preclude us from learning great truths and trying to be good, time and again.

--------------------------------------------


I’m not sure? But it is apparent a good part of the world has not yet recovered of its blindness.

My notebook says the same thing, but I wonder where you got this observation from. I think mine is pretty obvious.__________________

What isn’t obvious is why God has not given you the same eyes to see and ears to hear as so many others? Maybe you will be pardoned because of that?

 

[Me Myself]

Very true, but fear is something that ultimately applies to how one's actions may affect themselves or others which can be transcribed to being fearful of god.

everything applies to one´s own actions and can be transcribed to anything.

The thing is, fear has to do with "flight" mechanism, it is a distressing emotion. Distressing emotions make it difficult to experience the calming, comforting and happy ones. While the good ones may be emphasized because of contrast, to believe this makes fear in itself benefical for proper grattitude is to merely scratch the surface of it.

 

[Orias]

You still have not given me a satisfactory interpretation of what you think Scripture meant by God giving man dominion over the sky, the land, the birds, and the sea.

I think it meant that God gave man dominion over them.

So are you suggesting Christianity is false, and so is their God, because we have great sins in our past?

Not generally.

What isn’t obvious is why God has not given you the same eyes to see and ears to hear as so many others? Maybe you will be pardoned because of that?

Because it is through the eyes of others from which most see.

You have my eyes you have your own.

 

[thau]

I think it meant that God gave man dominion over them.




Not generally.



Because it is through the eyes of others from which most see.

You have my eyes you have your own.

Well that all sounded a bit vague. Was that on purpose or are you getting tired?

Take no offense... I enjoyed your civil discourse. I am sleepy. Having a smoke and retiring for the night. --- perhaps another time?

 

[Pegg]

simple question. is it part of your belief to reject data that opposes your belief? i have recently had a bible discussion with a fundamentalist christian. as it turns out his ultimate "argument" in response to the various biblical contradictions i pointed out to him was that no matter how immoral or contradictory god's actions seem, we MUST ALWAYS assume they are not.

we must always assume that negative data regarding god is actually positive data that only looks negative to us, because we do not see the big picture, do not have a full understanding, and are too limited to understand, and/or judge god/the bible.

the bible states that god is moral, therefore we must dismiss any data that says otherwise. and then he compared our limited understanding to that of a bear in a bear trap, or a baby being treated by a doctor....

he says that we are under the false impression that some of the things god did (as described in the bible) are evil, just like the bear is under the false impression that you are trying to hurt it, when all you are trying to do is free it, or the baby is under the impression that the doctor is trying to hurt it, when he is only trying to treat it.

whats your take?

we always need to keep bible accounts in their proper context and take all things into consideration. I find that a lot of what Dawkins, for example, says about the bible are often taken out of context and all the information about the account is not provided...so the picture he paints of a bible account appears to be as bad as he describes it

...and then you read the 'full' account, and you find the context and you realize that Dawkins has made the very common error of not giving you the full story.

I believe that when you know why God took a certain action and you take all the details into account, a reasonable conclusion can be reached.

 

[Me Myself]

we always need to keep bible accounts in their proper context and take all things into consideration. I find that a lot of what Dawkins, for example, says about the bible are often taken out of context and all the information about the account is not provided...so the picture he paints of a bible account appears to be as bad as he describes it

...and then you read the 'full' account, and you find the context and you realize that Dawkins has made the very common error of not giving you the full story.

I believe that when you know why God took a certain action and you take all the details into account, a reasonable conclusion can be reached.

For example:

When the bible says that it is worst to eat pig that to rape women or own slaves it sounds bad at first.

Cursing 42 young people to be mauled by bears because they called you "baldy" only makes sense after careful deliberation too.

 

[Pegg]

Then "fear" is a VERY improper word.

fear has nothing to do with gratitude, comprehension/acknowledgement or humility.

Faith is to fear what light is to darkness.

ever been in 'awe' of something?

that is what the hebrew word means with regard to the 'fear of God'