3 ms·

I'm a logician and I wouldn't call those stories a "logical nightmare". I'd even go so far as to say they have a profound deep inner logic. It's a bit arrogant

by xamuel 8y ago

I'm a logician and I wouldn't call those stories a "logical nightmare". I'd even go so far as to say they have a profound deep inner logic. It's a bit arrogant, given a book which alleges to reveal divine secrets of reality, to assume said book should all be perfectly intuitive and easy to understand. "Sacred Hidden Truths for Dummies"? :)

JoeAltmaier 8y ago
Be fair. They use normal language, make no attempt to explore any subtlety involved, and so its reasonable to take it at face value. And at face value, it appears to be a pretty lame patch on an appearance of paganism (multiple gods, oh wait, its really one).
- xamuel 8y ago
  Think of it this way. Imaging you're immortal, and you're going to go to a deserted island for all eternity, and you can take one book with you. Suppose you want to maximize the probability that the one book you take with you will provide you value as long as possible. You could take a practical book about how to survive on a desert island. But, since you're gonna live forever, everything in there is stuff you could figure out on your own eventually. So this book's value is only short-term. You could take a new age book with lots of feel-good, intuitively-pleasing platitudes. But, again, you could just invent all that by yourself. Probability of eternal-term value: 0. A collection of stories like the ones in question at least has some chance of providing eternal-term value, precisely BECAUSE on the short-term they seem so absurd. If they were intuitively pleasing at first glance, then you could just come up with them yourself eventually. This same reasoning would apply to any similar collection of stories, but the stories in question at least have a lot of precedent / test-of-time / reputable endorsements.
moate 8y ago
Why? Why is that arrogant? God loves you. Why hide the keys?
- xamuel 8y ago
  Some lessons are easier learned through parables/fables/stories than through direct teaching. That's especially true for children. I can tell my little daughter the story of "the boy who cried wolf", or "the dog that bit the hand that fed it", and that'll be a lot more effective than if I try to directly teach her the underlying lessons without the emotional stories attached to them. If a higher power would try to teach me some lessons, I assume (by analogy) that those lessons would similarly come in the form of stories or parables etc. Just like my daughter understands my teachings better in that form, I assume I would understand a higher power's teachings better in that form. If a book claims to be inspired by a higher power, and I read it and everything looks immediately feel-good intuitive/logical on the surface, than I'm going to reject it, saying: "I could have written that myself!"
- walljm 8y ago
  I'll take a stab at answering this in a different way. I think the pride comes in assuming that the being that created the book is exactly like yourself. That assumption is egocentric. That the nature of the being who created this universe is complex, and isn't exactly like us, shouldn't be that surprising. Any being capable of such things would surely be different from us in some material way. When that being describes himself, and those descriptions do not line up with our expectations, thats ok. He doesn't exist inside the confines of the universe he created and that we live in, and is not bounded by it or its rules. The gospel isn't, on the whole, that complicated. All mankind are sinners. The consequence of sin is death. The way to be saved from death is to accept a divine gift. To accept the gift, you need to acknowledge your sin, accept that the giver exists and that the gift exists, and ask for it. There are further details and surprising depth and beauty, but the basics are very simple. I don't think He hid the keys.

by xamuel 8y ago

JoeAltmaier 8y ago

Be fair. They use normal language, make no attempt to explore any subtlety involved, and so its reasonable to take it at face value. And at face value, it appears to be a pretty lame patch on an appearance of paganism (multiple gods, oh wait, its really one).

xamuel 8y ago
Think of it this way. Imaging you're immortal, and you're going to go to a deserted island for all eternity, and you can take one book with you. Suppose you want to maximize the probability that the one book you take with you will provide you value as long as possible. You could take a practical book about how to survive on a desert island. But, since you're gonna live forever, everything in there is stuff you could figure out on your own eventually. So this book's value is only short-term. You could take a new age book with lots of feel-good, intuitively-pleasing platitudes. But, again, you could just invent all that by yourself. Probability of eternal-term value: 0. A collection of stories like the ones in question at least has some chance of providing eternal-term value, precisely BECAUSE on the short-term they seem so absurd. If they were intuitively pleasing at first glance, then you could just come up with them yourself eventually. This same reasoning would apply to any similar collection of stories, but the stories in question at least have a lot of precedent / test-of-time / reputable endorsements.

moate 8y ago

Why? Why is that arrogant? God loves you. Why hide the keys?

xamuel 8y ago
Some lessons are easier learned through parables/fables/stories than through direct teaching. That's especially true for children. I can tell my little daughter the story of "the boy who cried wolf", or "the dog that bit the hand that fed it", and that'll be a lot more effective than if I try to directly teach her the underlying lessons without the emotional stories attached to them. If a higher power would try to teach me some lessons, I assume (by analogy) that those lessons would similarly come in the form of stories or parables etc. Just like my daughter understands my teachings better in that form, I assume I would understand a higher power's teachings better in that form. If a book claims to be inspired by a higher power, and I read it and everything looks immediately feel-good intuitive/logical on the surface, than I'm going to reject it, saying: "I could have written that myself!"
walljm 8y ago
I'll take a stab at answering this in a different way. I think the pride comes in assuming that the being that created the book is exactly like yourself. That assumption is egocentric. That the nature of the being who created this universe is complex, and isn't exactly like us, shouldn't be that surprising. Any being capable of such things would surely be different from us in some material way. When that being describes himself, and those descriptions do not line up with our expectations, thats ok. He doesn't exist inside the confines of the universe he created and that we live in, and is not bounded by it or its rules. The gospel isn't, on the whole, that complicated. All mankind are sinners. The consequence of sin is death. The way to be saved from death is to accept a divine gift. To accept the gift, you need to acknowledge your sin, accept that the giver exists and that the gift exists, and ask for it. There are further details and surprising depth and beauty, but the basics are very simple. I don't think He hid the keys.