A problem with some religous views

[chezlaw]

point taken about (something similar). By similar I mean something that doesn't change the argument.

So I think you agree with the argument being valid. Do you think the conclusion is true? if not which premise is false. I accept you can think the conclusion is true and that the statement doesn't reflect your religous view.

chez

[Jeff V]

[ QUOTE ]
that religous view is mistaken.


[/ QUOTE ]

Based on my previously reply, then yes I think the above would be true.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
The argument is fine but not particularly helpful. Almost everybody already knows that Not Ready is wrong about this stuff, including the vast majority of highly religious people and deep down, including Not Ready himself. There are bigger fish to fry.

[/ QUOTE ]

A more serious response to your post:

I plan to build a shakey building on this simple foundation and at some point I may overstep the bounds of logic. All help keeping me on the straight and narrow is appreciated.

Nothing in this argument will make any difference to those who don't care to justify religon on rational grounds but I hope to have a useful dialogue with those who believe in rationality (you may already be able to see where I'm going and recognise it's futility but bear with me, I have to go slower than you).

chez

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Almost everybody already knows that Not Ready is wrong about this stuff, including the vast majority of highly religious people and deep down, including Not Ready himself


[/ QUOTE ]

Now who's relying on what's in the heart?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

"we are all guilty of sins, those who believe can get redemption and those who don't believe have no chance of redemption and will be punished"


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't agree with the form. Those who don't believe have a chance to believe. Instead, just say those who don't believe will not take part in God's provision of forgiveness, not that they don't have a chance.

[ QUOTE ]

So either I am being deceived by my feelings of right and wrong, god isn't good, or that religous view is mistaken.
Any flaw in the logic?


[/ QUOTE ]

There's a fundamental difficulty with saying God isn't good. The problem is if He is God He can be subject to no other standard of good. So I'm not going to agree with this conclusion.

I think you are right when you say you are being deceived by your feelings of right and wrong. This is really the other side of the above. If you and God disagree on what's right, you have to be wrong. There's no alternative.

But God's rightness isn't arbitrary. Part of your problem is not understanding the true nature of sin. God does not punish more that is just. He usually punishes far less. The Bible says He is compassionate and patient. The reason it may not seem so is because we take a very light view of sin.

[RJT]

Chez,

Here should be your starting point:

Read it (the Bible, especially the New Testament - or perhaps only the NT yourself.) Then you tell me if you would start with the premise as written.

I don’t think you would.

I know I wouldn’t. (Sorry to not answer your question directly. It simply isn’t that simple - your premise - nor the answer.)


I am sure you don’t have the time to actually read the Bible (not a bad read really, the NT - the OLD T is a bit tough). I am not trying to evangelize here. But just quickly read my Christianity Primer a few posts back. Even after that would you still be so confident in your premise as written?

Would you discuss “Moby Dick” without reading the book? If I tell you it is a story about a whale, I wouldn’t be giving you a wrong answer. Is it a good answer?


Another analogy: You think David S. et al wants us to play only literally by The Book (Small Stakes Hold “em)?


Cheers,

RJT

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Chez,

Here should be your starting point:

Read it (the Bible, especially the New Testament - or perhaps only the NT yourself.) Then you tell me if you would start with the premise as written.

I don’t think you would.

I know I wouldn’t. (Sorry to not answer your question directly. It simply isn’t that simple - your premise - nor the answer.)


I am sure you don’t have the time to actually read the Bible (not a bad read really, the NT - the OLD T is a bit tough). I am not trying to evangelize here. But just quickly read my Christianity Primer a few posts back. Even after that would you still be so confident in your premise as written?

Would you discuss “Moby Dick” without reading the book? If I tell you it is a story about a whale, I wouldn’t be giving you a wrong answer. Is it a good answer?


Another analogy: You think David S. et al wants us to play only literally by The Book (Small Stakes Hold “em)?


Cheers,

RJT

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure what you mean but the statement is not a premise in the argument. I'm claiming my argument is logically valid and its not very long so if you see a problem then let me know what it is.

chez

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

"we are all guilty of sins, those who believe can get redemption and those who don't believe have no chance of redemption and will be punished"


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't agree with the form. Those who don't believe have a chance to believe. Instead, just say those who don't believe will not take part in God's provision of forgiveness, not that they don't have a chance.

[ QUOTE ]

So either I am being deceived by my feelings of right and wrong, god isn't good, or that religous view is mistaken.
Any flaw in the logic?


[/ QUOTE ]

There's a fundamental difficulty with saying God isn't good. The problem is if He is God He can be subject to no other standard of good. So I'm not going to agree with this conclusion.

I think you are right when you say you are being deceived by your feelings of right and wrong. This is really the other side of the above. If you and God disagree on what's right, you have to be wrong. There's no alternative.

But God's rightness isn't arbitrary. Part of your problem is not understanding the true nature of sin. God does not punish more that is just. He usually punishes far less. The Bible says He is compassionate and patient. The reason it may not seem so is because we take a very light view of sin.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm struggling a bit with your repsonse. As far as I can tell you agree the argument is logically valid but disagree that the statement reflects your religious view - is that correct?

chez

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Chez,

Here should be your starting point:

Read it (the Bible, especially the New Testament - or perhaps only the NT yourself.) Then you tell me if you would start with the premise as written.

I don’t think you would.

I know I wouldn’t. (Sorry to not answer your question directly. It simply isn’t that simple - your premise - nor the answer.)


I am sure you don’t have the time to actually read the Bible (not a bad read really, the NT - the OLD T is a bit tough). I am not trying to evangelize here. But just quickly read my Christianity Primer a few posts back. Even after that would you still be so confident in your premise as written?

Would you discuss “Moby Dick” without reading the book? If I tell you it is a story about a whale, I wouldn’t be giving you a wrong answer. Is it a good answer?


Another analogy: You think David S. et al wants us to play only literally by The Book (Small Stakes Hold “em)?


Cheers,

RJT

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure what you mean but the statement is not a premise in the argument. I'm claiming my argument is logically valid and its not very long so if you see a problem then let me know what it is.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

"we are all guilty of sins, those who believe can get redemption and those who don't believe have no chance of redemption and will be punished" I was referring to that quote as the premise. It has been a while since I used formal logic.

Let me answer it this way and you can translate it into logic form. And correct yourself if it is flawed or answer your own question if it isn’t flawed. I am confused myself in trying to get it exactly right.

Basically it seems to flow, but it seems that you are just getting back to the original part.

If any religion claims this then your logic seems to flows (almost). You are stating that you have a problem with said religions. You are saying said religions exist. You say at the end “…or that religious view is mistaken”. If indeed there is such a religion , the religious view isn’t mistaken per se - it is just a view that you don‘t agree with. It might indeed be a mistaken view as far as what is the True religion. But, I am not sure that point is clear as written. So, I think this part needs ammended.

Do you mean to write at the end something like “the view of someone who told me about their religion is mistaken - or someone who told me this is their religion’s view is mistaken”

Again all I am trying to say is this - it sounds like you are talking about Christianity. And that isn't a correct statement to make about Christianity. (Well, I guess some would argue that it is a correct statement - just not a complete one. That was my Moby Dick comparision).

Hope this helps you and you can translate my words back to what you are formalizing if need be.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
If any religion claims this then your logic seems to flows (almost). You are stating that you have a problem with said religions. You are saying said religions exist. You say at the end “…or that religious view is mistaken”. If indeed there is such a religion , the religious view isn’t mistaken per se - it is just a view that you don‘t agree with. It might indeed be a mistaken view as far as what is the True religion. But, I am not sure that point is clear as written. So, I think this part needs ammended.

[/ QUOTE ]

If nothing else I am learning something because I thought this statement was accurate about some religous views.

Hpowever, nowhere in the argument do I assume that such religons exist. Sorry if what I said was misleading.

The (hopefully more clear) argument is that if I find a religon that subscribes to the view in that statement, then because I find the god of that religon morally repugnant then either my morality misleads me, god isn't good or the religon is mistaken.

Logically valid and do you agree with conclusion. If not, why not?

Thanks

chez