I've never been fond of many of Mr. Bush's policies, but I will admit that on this topic I agree with him 100%.
The fact is that the hard-liners denouncing Islam are no better than bin Laden himself -- because they refuse to tolerate those who think differently, and are making sweeping generalizations about an entire culture based on the actions of a small minority.
(The following commentary is admittedly not an expert opinion, but I took a college class that touched on Islam a few years ago.)
I won't say that Islam is necessarily the most peaceful religion in the world. Yes, Muhammad was a warrior who established Islam by force. But also remember that the early battles especially were fought for the right to practice their religion. But Islam also brought a strong sense of morality and philosophy to the Arab world and beyond -- not to mention the fact that when the early Muslim empire was established, it was a firm policy to tolerate those new subjects who did not choose to convert to Islam.
Furthermore, anyone (especially in the US) who calls Islam a "militant" religion had better check for the plank in their own eye. The Crusades, the Thirty-Years' War, the persecution of Jews for nearly two thousand years, the Ku Klux Klan... just what makes Christianity any better than Islam?
The simple fact is that any religion or philosophy must be applied in practice, and its principles are often adapted, twisted, or perverted to suit the goals of those who profess to believe.
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
well the U.S. policy on this has always been persecute now, apologize later. Maybe the religious right would like to dust off the old WWII internment camps, lock up all the Muslims for a while, then do some A&E specials on it later.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
If we could rid ourselves of the militant fundamentalists of BOTH religions, we would all be vastly better off.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
Not to mention it would be great fun to watch Posted by newark (Member # 888) on :
I come home and my mother fresh from reading the newspaper tells me of the current plans for the Iraqi government. When our nation battles Iraq and destroys the current regime, a military government will be created to run the country. Something like this happened in Japan over fifty years ago.
Japan and the Middle East are not the same, though. The Japanese, obediant to their god-emperor, followed his wishes and respected the Americans and their efforts in rebuilding a war torn Japan. The Japanese came to like our music and our culture and incorporated elements of both into their culture.
The people of the Middle East are taught by their leaders in the media and the schools that the American government is supporting the Jewish cause and is hostile to the values and beliefs of Islam. They are told lies about the Jews and us. They see us using the Jews as a weapon against the Islamic world. It doesn't help when our military is in the land of their most sacred sites, Mecca and Medina, and it won't help when we positioned a military government in Iraq. This will be seen as a further expansion of an imperialistic nation bent on destroying Islam.
I fear this will be the catalyst in the many groups opposed to Israel and the West, especially the US, into an organized army. We have not killed any of the groups or attacked their major allies in the Middle East. They are functioning as before, killing and maiming their enemies while we are ducking for cover from their bullets and auto drivers.
This is a frelled situation, and will get more frelled soon.
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
quote:"The enemy has an ideology, and an hour spent surfing the Web will give the average citizen at least the kind of insights that he or she might have found during World Wars I and II by reading Mein Kampf or the writings of Lenin, Stalin or Mao."
Which you just plain wouldn't get it you spent an hour on the web looking at some Christian websites. . .
Posted by Daryus Aden (Member # 12) on :
Ditto, Lee.
Take for example the following:
"For millions of non-believing Americans, Christianity is perhaps the most offensive and sinister of all the world's religions because it advocates the damnation and torment of non-believers. On this point, Christianity is a self-righteous psychosis like Fascism, Nazism, and Zionism."
We do not ADVOCATE damnation for non-believers. We simply believe it's the nature of existence. There's a difference, unless there's some odd definition of "advocate" that I've never encountered.
Posted by Proteus (Member # 212) on :
Religon is a waste of time and money and blood and should not exist.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
quote:Originally posted by Omega: We do not ADVOCATE damnation for non-believers. We simply believe it's the nature of existence. There's a difference, unless there's some odd definition of "advocate" that I've never encountered.
Two thousand years ago, some people believed that it was the "nature of existence" that the Earth was the center of the universe.
Two thousand years ago, some people believed that it was the "nature of existence" that fire was an element.
Two thousand years ago, some people believed that it was the "nature of existence" that Humans with darker skin were inferior to those with light skin.
Two thousand years ago, some people believed that it was the "nature of existence" that other people be sacrificed in bloody rituals in order to ensure good fortune for their own endeavors.
Two thousand years ago, some people believed that it was the "nature of existence" that those who did not believe in the Judeo-Christian God were destined to eternal damnation.
Need I go on?
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"Two thousand years ago, some people believed that it was the 'nature of existence' that those who did not believe in the Judeo-Christian God were destined to eternal damnation."
Two thousand years ago, the man upon whom the term "Christian" would be based wasn't yet ten years old. No-one believed in a Judeo-Christian god because no such thing had been thought of.
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
Two thousand years ago, there was no such thing as Nixpicking. Aah, those were happier times. . . 8)
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
quote:Originally posted by TSN: Two thousand years ago, the man upon whom the term "Christian" would be based wasn't yet ten years old. No-one believed in a Judeo-Christian god because no such thing had been thought of.
Two thousand years ago, people had no idea how old they were really, much less kept completely accurate historical records; therefore such expressions like "two thousand years ago" were frequently used as approximations.
Gee, I think they still do that today! Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
No! When people say "x years ago" they mean that amount exactly! This is why teh info in teh Voayger and hte Enterprsie is WORNG and teh Breman + teh Barga = suXXor! 8)
Posted by E. Cartman (Member # 256) on :
/me ponders what the course of history might have been like, had the Roman Empire not inadvertently turned determined, needy, fanatical followers of that mythical sect from Palestine into marters by trying to exterminate them two thousand years ago. No inspiration, no institutional establishment, no Omega talking out of his ass...
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
quote:Originally posted by First of Two: If we could rid ourselves of the militant fundamentalists of BOTH religions, we would all be vastly better off.
Hmmm... I sense a new reality gameshow coming on...
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Loath as I am to align myself with pedantry and worse, but I have to agree with Tim. Two thousand years ago, even in the fuzzy sense, Christianity was a Jewish sect struggling to survive. More importantly, the prospects for eternal damnation in Judaism were a lot less clear. So, I'm a bit at a loss here as to what the point is supposed to be.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
quote:Originally posted by E. Cartman: /me ponders what the course of history might have been like, had the Roman Empire not inadvertently turned determined, needy, fanatical followers of that mythical sect from Palestine into marters by trying to exterminate them two thousand years ago.
Slight tangent: You know, I've become more and more curious about alternative history science fiction due to a general trend in my reading, but all that Chapters has is some huge cheesy looking epic by some author...Turtledove I believe. Nonetheless, I did pick up an interesting book titled "Pastwatch" by Orson Scott Card.
In any case, we might simply have seen a world where the US has a right-wing populated by Muslims and plagued by terrorist Christians. Heh. Who knows... From my agnostic point of view, I really have no inherent preference for either faith.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Speaking of Alternative Christianity,
"What If? Vol.2" edited by Robert Cowley has an interesting look into an alternity where Pontius Pilate refused to execute Jesus and JC lived to a ripe old age.
The two (so far) What If? volumes are, IMHO, very well thought-out and not that dry for scholarly works.
Volume 1: Infectious Alternatives: The Plague That Saved Jerusalem, 701 B.C. No Glory That Was Greece: The Persians Win at Salamis, 480 B. C. Conquest Denied: The Premature Death of Alexander the Great Furor Teutonicus: The Teutoburg Forest, A.D. 9 The Dark Ages Made Lighter: The Consequences of Two Defeats The Death That Saved Europe: The Mongols Turn Back, 1242 If Only It Had Not Been Such a Wet Summer: The Critical Decade of the 1520s If the Holy League Hadn't Dithered The Immolation of Hernan Cortes: Tenochtitlan, June 30, 1521 121 The Repulse of the English Fireships: The Spanish Armada Triumphs, August 8, 1588 Unlikely Victory: Thirteen Ways the Americans Could Have Lost the Revolution George Washington's Gamble What the Fog Wrought: The Revolution's Dunkirk, August 29, 1776 Ruler of the World: Napoleon's Missed Opportunities Napoleon Wins at Waterloo If the Lost Order Hadn't Been Lost: Robert E. Lee Humbles the Union, 1862 A Confederate Cannae and Other Scenarios: How the Civil War Might Have Turned Out Differently Vietnam in America, 1865 The What Ifs of 1914: The World War That Should Never Have Been Bismarck's Empire: Stillborn Thanks, But no Cigar The Armistice of Desperation How Hitler Could Have Won the War: The Drive for the Middle East, 1941 What a Taxi Driver Wrought Triumph of the Dictators Our Midway Disaster: Japan Springs a Trap, June 4, 1942 The Case of the Missing Carriers D Day Fails: Atomic Alternatives in Europe The Soviet Invasion of Japan Funeral in Berlin: The Cold War Turns Hot China Without Tears: If Chiang Kai-shek Hadn't Gambled in 1946 A Quagmire Avoided?
Volume 2: Socrates Dies at Delium, 424 B.C. Not by a Nose Pontius Pilate Spares Jesus Repulse at Hastings, October 14, 1066 The Chinese Discovery of the New World, 15th Century Martin Luther Burns at the Stake, 1521 If Charles I Had Not Left Whitehall, August 1641 Napoleon's Invasion of North America If Lincoln Had Not Freed the Slaves France Turns the Other Check, July 1870 The Election of Theodore Roosevelt, 1912 The Great War Torpedoed No Finland Station The Luck of Franklin Delano Roosevelt The War of 1938 Prime Minister Halifax The Boys Who Saved Australia, 1942 Enigma Uncracked Pius XII Protests the Holocaust VE Day - November 11, 1944 The Fuhrer in the Dock No Bomb: No End The Presidency of Henry Wallace A Tale of Three Congressmen, 1948 What If Pizarro Had Not Found Potatoes in Peru?
Really quite fascinating.
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
Sounds very interesting. I'm curious as to how Socrates' time of death affects very much. Would philosophy have been that different without him? And his only real contribution politically in Athens was to be President of the Ekklesia in 406 when they publicly tried of the generals who abandoned shipwrecked sailors at the battle of Arginusae - and then he only delayed the guilty verdict by a day.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
Yeah; the first volume of What If? is very good. I'm waiting for the second to come out in paperback before I get it though (mainly because I don't have �18 for the hardback). although I read quite a bit of it in a bookshop...
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Vogon: No Socrates (or less, anyway) yields a different Plato and Aristotle... pretty much the foundations of philosophy at the time. Different schools of thought take over.
Posted by Nimrod Pimding (Member # 205) on :
Missing entry: "Smart Leadership in the Holy Land" During the last 20 years of the 12th century, Rome and the pope takes a more active role in the last crusade and cleanses the administration in Jerusalem and Gaza, putting in place leaders and a Grandmaster Templar who have extensive knowledge and experience with the surrounding countries, and a good appreciation for their resources in terms of Templars and Johannites, and also encouraging cooperation between the two monkhoods.
Instead of the disaster that ensued, where ignorant, cowardly, powerhungry "monarchs" wasted their whole stock of elite knights and soldiers in a few hopeless battles against the outstanding commander Salah al-Din...
Also, something I'd much rather see, believe me: "World spared of another jackass" L. Ron Hubbard slips in the bathtub in 1950. End of story.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
quote:Originally posted by First of Two:
It's out, Wraith.
Oh, good . On the other hand I live in Lincolnshire which is usually several months behind everywhere else... *sigh*.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
Double post, sorry.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
2,000 years ago, people believed that they were alive.
2,000 years ago, people believed that the external world existed.
2,000 years ago, people thought that orange ruffie was rather good.
Need I go on?
Well, that depends on whether you have a point to make or not, now doesn't it? Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
ah, 2,000 years ago people had basic knowledge, therefore they could never be wrong. proving the far-fetched plot of that novel about the Jewish carpenter is true!
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
2,000 years ago, people thought things. Some of these things were right. Some of these things were wrong. Therefore, the fact that something was thought by people who lived 2,000 years ago has no impact whatsoever on its truth value.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
Well, yes, that's true. Some things were right, and some were wrong. Perhaps I was not specific enough.
Theories about the nature of the universe, philosophy, science -- all of these have had to be modified or abandoned decades or centuries ago. As our methods of reasoning and tools for learning about the universe around us have improved, we have consistently modified those beliefs. And yet throughout that, religious beliefs have stayed basically static. And not just your religion, Omega. Just about all of them.
That, in my mind, is one of the primary reasons why religious beliefs are regressive, superstitious, and without real basis.
And before you whip out the "faith" card, let me point out that there are a lot of other people out there who have faith in beliefs completely contrary to yours. I think that rather than one of them being right and the rest wrong, they're ALL wrong. I suppose it's a use of Occam's Razor: if non-Christian religions are wrong, then why would Christianity be right?
Jesus, Muhammad, Buddha -- all of these were almost certainly real men, with many great beliefs and actions attributed to them. Each is supposedly well-documented. Yet just what makes Islam the "real" religion over Hinduism? Or any of the others?
(In my use of the term "religious," I am referring to the belief of supposedly supernatural beings, not the moral codes supposedly handed down by those beings.)
History is replete with examples of the mass propagation of thoughts that have twisted versions of the truth, or are completely false. Whole societies have been changed, controlled, led astray, directed or otherwise misled. From harmless superstitions about sailors falling off the edge of the world if they travel too far from land, to the purely evil assertions that the Caucasian race was superior to those of African descent -- social history is full of stories of untruths widely adopted by entire civilizations.
Religion is simply the last major holdover of our ancient background and the quest to achieve understanding about that which could not at the time be explained. Today, I think, the majority of religious people are simply afraid; afraid of taking responsibility, afraid of feeling alone, afraid of perceived hopelessness. The concept of a god allows them to place an almost desperate hope on some illusory being who can change that which might not be changed.
To come full circle, today's religions are based almost entirely on ancient documents that were written by people who wanted some way to explain that which they could not explain -- the origin and nature of the world, for example. To provide a conceptual object for their high hopes and desperate wishes. It's a belief that has persisted mainly because of that fear.
But I for one don't need that fear anymore. I respect your choice to believe that there really is a God out there. Heck, given the nature of things, I admit that I could be wrong. But that won't stop me from using my own reasoning and experience to decide my own worldview, and to explain it here -- and explain why I don't accept your assertion that I'm going to burn in Hell.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Theories about the nature of the universe, philosophy, science -- all of these have had to be modified or abandoned decades or centuries ago.
Yeah, that Greek dude 2500 years ago who knew almost the exact circumfrence of the Earth? Had to throw that out. And of course Gallileo was the absolute first to come up with the heliocentric model. And Columbus did, in fact, prove that the world was round, even though anyone who actually gave it some though for, oh, ever already knew that it was.
As our methods of reasoning and tools for learning about the universe around us have improved, we have consistently modified those beliefs. And yet throughout that, religious beliefs have stayed basically static.
And the simple explaination for this is that religion is not science! Except for people who use science as their religion, of course.
That, in my mind, is one of the primary reasons why religious beliefs are regressive, superstitious, and without real basis.
So because something doesn't change, it must be wrong? Illogical. What if it was right to begin with? If you accept the concept of divine revelation, if it DID change it'd be wrong. You're purposefully setting up a no-win scenario.
I suppose it's a use of Occam's Razor: if non-Christian religions are wrong, then why would Christianity be right?
What should one have to do with the other? The truth value of one set of beliefs has nothing to do with the truth value of a completely different set of beliefs.
Jesus, Muhammad, Buddha -- all of these were almost certainly real men, with many great beliefs and actions attributed to them. Each is supposedly well-documented. Yet just what makes Islam the "real" religion over Hinduism? Or any of the others?
Well, the Bible's main strong point is internal consistancy over a period of many centuries, among multiple authors, including definite prophetic statements. No other religion has any of those. You want what makes Christianity unique, that's it.
History is replete with examples of the mass propagation of thoughts that have twisted versions of the truth, or are completely false. Whole societies have been changed, controlled, led astray, directed or otherwise misled. From harmless superstitions about sailors falling off the edge of the world if they travel too far from land, to the purely evil assertions that the Caucasian race was superior to those of African descent -- social history is full of stories of untruths widely adopted by entire civilizations.
True, but irrelevant to the topic at hand, unless you can already prove religious belief to be false.
Religion is simply the last major holdover of our ancient background and the quest to achieve understanding about that which could not at the time be explained. Today, I think, the majority of religious people are simply afraid; afraid of taking responsibility, afraid of feeling alone, afraid of perceived hopelessness. The concept of a god allows them to place an almost desperate hope on some illusory being who can change that which might not be changed.
Here you're stating your opinion as fact, with no evidence to back it up. Take out a few words, though, and you've got something that's essentially correct: "The concept fo God allows hope." Just what hope do you have, sir? What do you hope for?
Posted by Snay (Member # 411) on :
I hope someday you'll realize how wrong you are ...
quote:Bible's main strong point is internal consistancy over a period of many centuries
Yeah ... sure it is.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
quote:Originally posted by Omega on December 03, 2002 at 16:28 - We do not ADVOCATE damnation for non-believers. We simply believe it's the nature of existence. There's a difference, unless there's some odd definition of "advocate" that I've never encountered.
quote:Originally posted by Omega on December 05, 2002 at 23:08 - What should one have to do with the other? The truth value of one set of beliefs has nothing to do with the truth value of a completely different set of beliefs.
Hmm... I'm tempted to invoke some of the lessons from the Logic course that I'm taking now. Because your argument is what my professor would call INVALID. By your reasoning, one religion's truth is not affected by any of the others. Therefore, according to your second quote, it's possible for BOTH Christianity and Islam (and any others) to be equally true. Which I know you don't suggest at all, knowing the typical Christian elitist viewpoint.
quote:So because something doesn't change, it must be wrong? Illogical. What if it was right to begin with? If you accept the concept of divine revelation, if it DID change it'd be wrong. You're purposefully setting up a no-win scenario.
Touch�.
Let me approach this from another angle: Jesus spoke almost entirely in terms of "he" and "your brother" and many other such gender-specific ideas... simply because that was the way things were at the time. As society has changed, so has the interpretation of that meaning -- which effectively negates a large portion of the concept of divine law. How can it be absolute and unchangeable if it's open to interpretation? The Bible itself has been translated, edited, and altered in so many different ways that it's simply sickening. The King James version, the New American Catholic Edition, and a bunch of others. Just which one is right? (If any?)
quote:Jesus, Muhammad, Buddha -- all of these were almost certainly real men, with many great beliefs and actions attributed to them. Each is supposedly well-documented. Yet just what makes Islam the "real" religion over Hinduism? Or any of the others?
Well, the Bible's main strong point is internal consistancy over a period of many centuries, among multiple authors, including definite prophetic statements. No other religion has any of those. You want what makes Christianity unique, that's it.
Internal consistency. Aha.
So tell me, what is the similarity supposed to be between the God who causes the destruction of Sodom, who drowns the Egyptians, who turns the battle between the Isrealites and the Philistines, and strikes people down left and right throughout the Old Testament, and the same God who starts preaching peace, love, and compassion all of a sudden later on?
Where is the love in owning slaves? In condoning murder? And why would the same God who protected the Jews for centuries allow the destruction of his Temple by the Romans in 70 AD, or allow the Holocaust two thousand years later?
You call THAT consistency?
quote:History is replete with examples of the mass propagation of thoughts that have twisted versions of the truth, or are completely false. Whole societies have been changed, controlled, led astray, directed or otherwise misled. From harmless superstitions about sailors falling off the edge of the world if they travel too far from land, to the purely evil assertions that the Caucasian race was superior to those of African descent -- social history is full of stories of untruths widely adopted by entire civilizations.
True, but irrelevant to the topic at hand, unless you can already prove religious belief to be false.
It is not proof in and of itself, and I never intended it as such. I was pointing out that history has many examples of societies readily embracing false ideas which conveniently suit them for some reason.
quote:Here you're stating your opinion as fact, with no evidence to back it up.
As are you, good sir. As are you. This ENTIRE DISCUSSION is nothing but opinion. It's simply the nature of philosophical beliefs.
quote:Take out a few words, though, and you've got something that's essentially correct: "The concept fo God allows hope." Just what hope do you have, sir? What do you hope for?
I hope for peace between Humans (and non-Humans, assuming they exist). I hope for understanding, both of ourselves, each other, and the universe. I hope for personal comfort and an end to war, poverty, and personal ambition at the expense of others. I hope for respect.
And as I said before, I acknowledge the possibility that I may be wrong; certainly the supernatural nature of any professed god is in some ways beyond my comprehension. But I do not accept that assertion to be "proof" of existence.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
quote:Originally posted by MinutiaeMan: And why would the same God who protected the Jews for centuries allow the destruction of his Temple by the Romans in 70 AD, or allow the Holocaust two thousand years later?
To quote from "Oh, God!"..
"One of my days isn't exactly as long as one of yours." "How do you mean?" "Well, when I woke up this morning, Sigmund Freud was still in medical school."
So maybe God ran to the can after eating Mexican & when he came out (or comes out) he's gonna be ULTRA-pissed.
Posted by E. Cartman (Member # 256) on :
quote:Yeah, that Greek dude 2500 years ago who knew almost the exact circumfrence of the Earth? Had to throw that out. And of course Gallileo was the absolute first to come up with the heliocentric model. And Columbus did, in fact, prove that the world was round, even though anyone who actually gave it some though for, oh, ever already knew that it was.
Yeah, and we all know how happily the Church adjusted its dogmas accordingly.
quote:And the simple explaination for this is that religion is not science! Except for people who use science as their religion, of course.
Science, by definition, CAN'T be used as religion.
quote:So because something doesn't change, it must be wrong? Illogical. What if it was right to begin with?
A dangerous assumption to make, but then, religion is not, nor will it EVER be, science, which seeks pure, quantifiable, falsifiable facts.
quote:What should one have to do with the other? The truth value of one set of beliefs has nothing to do with the truth value of a completely different set of beliefs.
Christianity, islam, hinduism and judaism are completely different how?
quote:Well, the Bible's main strong point is internal consistancy over a period of many centuries, among multiple authors, including definite prophetic statements. No other religion has any of those. You want what makes Christianity unique, that's it.
Would that be the same internal consistency that was painfully torn to shreds on multiple occasions, yet stubbornly continues to exist in your mind because of your typical religious method of ignoring any and all arguments against said consistency that have been brought up in the not-so-distant past?
quote:True, but irrelevant to the topic at hand, unless you can already prove religious belief to be false.
Nobody will ever be able to prove it to be false, so I suggest you try to find some kind of consolation in that fact, because it's the only one you have.
quote:"The concept fo God allows hope."
And no other concept does? Like, say, moral philosophy?
I long for the day religion will be discredited as the irrational byproduct of fear and superstition that it is.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
My goodness, it's someone who wants to discuss religion without being automatically derisive! Hallelujah!
By your reasoning, one religion's truth is not affected by any of the others. Therefore, according to your second quote, it's possible for BOTH Christianity and Islam (and any others) to be equally true.
Ah, I stand corrected. I should have said that the NEGATIVE truth value of a given belief system has no effect on the truth value of anotheer system.
Jesus spoke almost entirely in terms of "he" and "your brother" and many other such gender-specific ideas... simply because that was the way things were at the time. As society has changed, so has the interpretation of that meaning -- which effectively negates a large portion of the concept of divine law.
I fail to see how such a thing would negate the concept of immutable divine revelation. Just because someone uses a male pronoun doesn't mean they're referring exclusively to males, at least not in our language, and I'm guessing not in a lot of others. It's likely more of a limitation of the language that Jesus was speaking in, or the language his words were being written in. You have to take things like that into account when reading the Bible for what it MEANS. The ultimate meaning is all that really matters. I mean, so frikin' what if we don't know exactly what a leviathan was? It doesn't really change anything.
The King James version, the New American Catholic Edition, and a bunch of others. Just which one is right?
Well, they all mean the same thing, 99.9% of the time, regardless of the exact language used. You'd have to point to a specific inconsistancy in the translations for me to be more specific than that.
So tell me, what is the similarity supposed to be between the God who causes the destruction of Sodom, who drowns the Egyptians, who turns the battle between the Isrealites and the Philistines, and strikes people down left and right throughout the Old Testament, and the same God who starts preaching peace, love, and compassion all of a sudden later on?
His ultimate goal. The idea is always to save as many people as possible, and if that requires the deaths of several thousand others, I'm sure he's not exactly HAPPY about it, but it's necessary to accomplish the greater good. Yeah, it's rather Machievellean, but if you're omniscient and you know all possible ends, then the ends DO justify the means.
Where is the love in owning slaves?
For varying definitions and conditions of slavery.
In condoning murder?
Which?
And why would the same God who protected the Jews for centuries allow the destruction of his Temple by the Romans in 70 AD, or allow the Holocaust two thousand years later?
They had a contract: God protects Israel, Israel does what they're told. Israel broke the contract, and thus God was no longer bound by its terms.
I hope for peace between Humans (and non-Humans, assuming they exist). I hope for understanding, both of ourselves, each other, and the universe. I hope for personal comfort and an end to war, poverty, and personal ambition at the expense of others. I hope for respect.
So now I must ask, "Why?" Is any of that really going to matter, in the ultimate analysis, if you accept a materialistic view of the world?
And now, to respond to someone who isn't quite so stimulating...
Yeah, and we all know how happily the Church adjusted its dogmas accordingly.
And the Catholic Church's actions are relevant... how?
Science, by definition, CAN'T be used as religion.
Define religion.
Christianity, islam, hinduism and judaism are completely different how?
In that they are not the same. Duh. Or did you really want an analysis of the major differences?
Would that be the same internal consistency that was painfully torn to shreds on multiple occasions
When? I posted a thread challenging anyone to post such supposed inconsistancies, and answered every one of them.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"The idea is always to save as many people as possible, and if that requires the deaths of several thousand others, I'm sure he's not exactly HAPPY about it, but it's necessary to accomplish the greater good."
Rationalization. You made it up. More specifically, you didn't make it up personally, but some Christian did. I'm pretty sure there's no passage in the bible where Yahweh says "yeah, I need to kill a bunch of people off, and it sucks, but most of you will be better off for it". Someone, at some point, realized that it didn't make any sense for such a "loving" god to make life so shitty. So, they invented the idea that there must be some sort of "plan".
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Why should it matter whether it was specifically stated in a verse somewhere? I consider it to be a reasonable extrapolation, because it fits all the data in question, and draws them into a coherant whole. Sure, it's rationalization, but it's a darned good one.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Because "omniscience" means you can do better. And "omnipotence" means you can do the impossible, so don't tell me there wasn't a better way.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
But then, maybe he did. Maybe in the alternative universe all of mankind was wiped out in WWII, and this was God trying to compromise.
I dunno. Individually, people who get everything they want in life without sacrifice are rarely the nicest of chaps. For humanity as a whole to improve, maybe it does have to have the proverbial shit dropped on it occasionally. Bad stuff happens, people make sure it doesn't happen again. "No pain, no gain", and all that.
Or not. The main thing that always makes me uncomfortable about Omega's beliefs is the complete and total sureness of it all. When adopting that mindset, arguments will ultimatly fail because they can all be resolved with "It's God's plan". If God does exist, then there is a fairly huge chance that we cannot comprehend what he's up to, so it does make a certain degree of sense as an argument. But it's wholely unsatisfying from a human POV. Which is why a fair few people (I'd wager the majority) who believe in God aren't anywhere near as cocksure about it.
quote: We do not ADVOCATE damnation for non-believers. We simply believe it's the nature of existence. There's a difference, unless there's some odd definition of "advocate" that I've never encountered.
"We"?
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
IF there's a "plan," then with omniscience and omnipotence added into the mix, it must necessarily involve not only good, but evil.
"God has a plan." "Yeah? Did God's plan include me shooting you in the face with a bazooka?"
God's plan seems to include a lot of crap happening to thoroughly good people, and a lot of evil fucks getting away with murder. It is therefore a stupid plan.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
Here's the ultimate contradiction, in my mind: the conflict between the concept of human free will and the omnipotence and omniscience of God. Considering the theory that God loves each and every one of us, I ask the following question:
Did God love bin Laden so much that he allowed him the free will to choose to launch an attack that killed 4,000 innocent people whom God supposedly also loves?
I submit that any being who claims such love and yet allows such evil is evil itself.
To put in simpler terms -- say you owned two dogs in your household. You love both of your dogs, and give them free reign of the house. Then one day, for some obscure reason they get in a fight. Rather than pull them apart, you let one dog rip the other to shreds. How is THAT love for the dog that gets ripped to shreds?
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Because "omniscience" means you can do better. And "omnipotence" means you can do the impossible, so don't tell me there wasn't a better way.
Not within the limit of allowing us freedom to make our own decisions. That's the other major consistant thread in God's actions.
Did God love bin Laden so much that he allowed him the free will to choose to launch an attack that killed 4,000 innocent people whom God supposedly also loves?
So where does He stop? Does He stop extramarital sex? Bad language? Our every sinful thought? At what point do we stop being human, made in His image, and thus worthy of defense in the first place? Remember, avoidance of death is not the end-all-be-all of our lives in God's eyes. You're forcing Him into a human perspective. As Liam pointed out, Christianity always has the fallback of God's omniscience and benevolence to explain all possible action or lack thereof on the part of God.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Actually, the concept of omnipotence almost explicitly rejects the ability to do the impossible, which by definition can't be done. It isn't a matter of power.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Omnipotence means you can do ANYTHING. Even that which you can't, because there's nothing you can't do. An Omnipotent being HAS no limits, not even "Free Will."
In addition, Omega, "free will" only applies to the CHOICES you make, not how those choices pan out. If every decision and attempt to do evil failed miserably or backfired on the do-er without harming anyone else, that would STILL be free will (we can see this because some attempts DO pan out that way). People would still be free to choose and act.
There. I've figured out a way to prevent harm AND preserve free will that God didn't. I expect my promotion within the week. I promise to be a just and merciful Deity.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Omnipotence means you can do ANYTHING.
No, it means you can do anything THAT CAN BE DONE. God can't do the logically impossible, i.e. 2+2=5.
As for God simply interfering with how our actions affect others, if that was the case, again, what would be the point? There wouldn't be a humanity, there'd be a bunch of individuals in their own isolated worlds.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"To put in simpler terms -- say you owned two dogs in your household. You love both of your dogs, and give them free reign of the house. Then one day, for some obscure reason they get in a fight. Rather than pull them apart, you let one dog rip the other to shreds. How is THAT love for the dog that gets ripped to shreds?"
It's all part of his bigger plan: to sell pre-shredded dog meat to the Vietnamese restaurant down the street.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Omega is absolutely right, re: omnipotence. Consider another traditional aspect of God, omnipresence. God is everywhere, in every possible place. But he isn't in places that don't exist, for reasons that are self-evident.
There are plenty of good reasons to not be a theist. But this line of argument isn't really one of them.
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
quote:if you're omniscient and you know all possible ends, then the ends DO justify the means.
Wow. A quantum God.
quote:Why should it matter whether it was specifically stated in a verse somewhere? I consider it to be a reasonable extrapolation, because it fits all the data in question, and draws them into a coherant whole. Sure, it's rationalization, but it's a darned good one.
In your opinion. But most of the problems everyone has with Christianity have been people who've 'extrapolated' what God wants them to do. Far too many such people, in fact. If nothing else, if we have free will and can do what we want, couldn't God at least intervene to stop all the misrepresentation?
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
But most of the problems everyone has with Christianity have been people who've 'extrapolated' what God wants them to do.
Generalization. Judge based on content, not vague similarity.
As for God intervening to stop misrepresentation, wouldn't ANY direct and obvious intervention destroy free will? Who could HELP but believe?
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote:Originally posted by First of Two:
In addition, Omega, "free will" only applies to the CHOICES you make, not how those choices pan out. If every decision and attempt to do evil failed miserably or backfired on the do-er without harming anyone else, that would STILL be free will (we can see this because some attempts DO pan out that way). People would still be free to choose and act.
Except, well, they wouldn't. Because what would be the point? I can threaten to fly to my university under my own power, but it would be pointless.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"As for God intervening to stop misrepresentation, wouldn't ANY direct and obvious intervention destroy free will? Who could HELP but believe?"
What, intervention like the bible says he did for centuries upon centuries before suddenly stopping?
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
quote:Originally posted by Omega: As for God intervening to stop misrepresentation, wouldn't ANY direct and obvious intervention destroy free will? Who could HELP but believe?
Let's see here... should I go in chronological order, or in order of severity? I'll go chronological: -- God almost wiped out the Israelites at Mount Sinai when they started worshipping the golden calf. -- God did not let Moses enter the Promised Land because he doubted God's power for a moment a few decades before. -- God withdrew his "blessing" from King Saul and essentially destroyed him (allowing him to be destroyed, a technicality) when he decided to pray on his own rather than wait for Samuel, the priest. -- God allowed the destruction of the nation of Israel by... the Babylonians, I believe it was, when they started straying from his set teachings. -- There was the Transfiguration of Jesus on the mountaintop witnessed by Peter and one or two other disciples (I think it might have been James and/or John, but I don't recall for certain). -- God's voice came literally booming down from heaven to speak to Saul (who later was known as Paul, or Saint Paul, the "true" founder of Christianity as an organized faith) and literally blinded him for three days.
Now, from these examples, it's obvious that God has had no qualms about revealing his presence to us mere mortals. And yet obviously he's also willing to strike those same people down if they choose not to believe him -- witness the Israelites.
Furthermore, the extended philosophy that God supposedly is a God of Love for every single person, seems an extraordinarily unreasonable theory based on this idea. Never mind my previous reasoning regarding Osama and his gang -- God literally DID reveal himself to Israel, and gave them the free will to choose. And when they chose (briefly) to NOT believe, then he was going to wipe them out! How can that possibly be considered free will?
And I wouldn't try arguing that God has changed, or God has his reasons. I submit that the Jewish God of the Old Testament is fundamentally different from the God that Jesus represented, especially according to modern teachings from the evolution of Christianity. Faith is a funny thing -- yes, you can make a literal leap of faith based on partial facts. But I simply find that the "facts" provided are both inadequate and of questionable origin.
Has anyone here watched the movie "Contact," starring Jodie Foster? It's one of my all-time favorite movies, because it combines science fiction with some deep philosophical issues. I admit that I've altered my position a little bit after watching that movie two nights ago, but I really believe that if there were something so important as the faith that's supposedly advocated by God, there would be a whole lot more proof that keeps up with the times. Not some ancient book filled with stories that could be considered cultural fiction and superstition. It doesn't have to be the classical booming voice from heaven, but I think that for an issue of such importance, more facts would be provided. FACTS, not speculation and interpretation and extrapolation done by a small clique of men who seem to have a thing for pre-adolescent boys or teenage girls. If God has been trying to send me a message, then he should have found a much more reliable group to bring the message.
(Explanation: I was baptized Catholic soon after I was born, and received plenty of religious education, attending private Catholic schools all the way through high school. Though I certainly respect the integrity of many -- even most -- priests and religious figures, I still see all churches as monolithic, reactionary, and corrupt organizations.)
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
You mentioned Jesus' "transfiguration" as an intervention, but what about the act of sending Jesus to Earth in the first place? That seems a more significant intervention in general than any specific thing Jesus would have done.
And there's a reason the Christian god is so different from the old Hebrew god. Judaism was based on Middle Eastern polytheistic religions. Christianity threw in Buddhism and Zoroastrianism w/ it.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
quote:Originally posted by TSN: And there's a reason the Christian god is so different from the old Hebrew god. Judaism was based on Middle Eastern polytheistic religions. Christianity threw in Buddhism and Zoroastrianism w/ it.
Oh, I agree there. The atheistic view is that philosophies and religion adapted to incorporate new ideas.
However, in my last post I was trying to argue mainly within the events described in the Bible -- whether they're true or not.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Christianity has about as much to do with Buddhism as it does with, I don't know, Kahless worship.
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
quote:Generalization. Judge based on content, not vague similarity.
You've been complaining about the lack of a decent religion thread, yet by the 4th page you're already resorting to the "dog ate my homework" method of avoiding anything you don't want to handle? You KNOW what I was referring to. You yourself have in the past been quick to stress that Christianity shouldn't be judged by what some people have done in its name. But now such a tack would weaken your whole position in this debate. So you hastily bypass it with your typical bleating about wanting exact sources in triplicate, on parchment, probably endorsed by the fucking Pope for all I know. Do I have to bring up some of your own very public extrapolations of scripture with regard to homosexuality and black people?
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"Christianity has about as much to do with Buddhism as it does with, I don't know, Kahless worship."
I know admittedly little about Buddhism, but people who know more of these things than I do have theorized that Jesus may actually have travelled to the east and studied Buddhism to get some of the stuff he taught. So, there must be some sort of similarity. I know the thing where Satan visits Jesus out in the desert and tries to tempt him to the Dark Side was originally a story about Buddha.
Posted by E. Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Seems to me Omega's playing the old, and fundamentally flawed, "if you believe in god and turn out to be incorrect, you have lost nothing -- but if you don't believe in god and turn out to be incorrect, you will go to hell. Therefore it is foolish to be an atheist" trump card*. AGAIN.
*Pascal Wager's, to be exact.
Firstly, it does not indicate which religion to follow. Indeed, there are many mutually exclusive and contradictory religions out there. This is often described as the "avoiding the wrong hell" problem. If a person is a follower of one religion, he may end up in another religion's version of hell.
(Of course, in Omega's book, christianity is right and all other religions are horse manure, so this point is somewhat moot.)
Even if we assume that there's a god, that doesn't imply that there's one unique god. Which should we believe in? If we believe in all of them, how will we decide which commandments to follow?
Secondly, the statement that "If you believe in god and turn out to be incorrect, you have lost nothing" is not true. Suppose you're believing in the wrong god -- the true god might punish you for your foolishness. Consider also the deaths that have resulted from people rejecting medicine in favor of prayer.
Another flaw in the argument is that it is based on the assumption that the two possibilities are equally likely -- or at least, that they are of comparable likelihood. If, in fact, the possibility of there being a god is close to zero, the argument becomes much less persuasive. So sadly the argument is only likely to convince those who believe already.
Also, many feel that for intellectually honest people, belief is based on evidence, with some amount of intuition. It is not a matter of will or cost-benefit analysis.
Formally speaking, the argument consists of four statements:
1. One does not know whether god exists. 2. Not believing in god is bad for one's eternal soul if god does exist. 3. Believing in god is of no consequence if god does not exist. 4. Therefore it is in one's interest to believe in god.
There are two approaches to the argument. The first is to view Statement 1 as an assumption, and Statement 2 as a consequence of it. The problem is that there's really no way to arrive at Statement 2 from Statement 1 via simple logical inference. The statements just don't follow on from each other.
The alternative approach is to claim that Statements 1 and 2 are both assumptions. The problem with this is that Statement 2 is then basically an assumption which states the christian position, and only a christian will agree with that assumption. The argument thus collapses to "If you are a christian, it is in your interests to believe in god" -- a rather vacuous tautology, and not the way Pascal intended the argument to be viewed.
Also, if we don't even know that god exists, why should we take Statement 2 over some similar assumption? Isn't it just as likely that god would be angry at people who chose to believe for personal gain? If god is omniscient, he will certainly know who really believes and who believes as a wager. He will spurn the latter... assuming he actually cares at all whether people truly believe in him.
Some have suggested that the person who chooses to believe based on Pascal's Wager, can then somehow make the transition to truly believing. Unfortunately, most atheists don't find it possible to make that leap.
In addition, this hypothetical god may require more than simple belief; almost all christians believe that the christian god requires an element of trust and obedience from his followers. That destroys the assertion that if you believe but are wrong, you lose nothing.
Finally, if this god is a fair and just god, surely he will judge people on their actions in life, not on whether they happen to believe in him. A god who sends good and kind people to hell is not one most atheists would be prepared to consider worshipping.
(Free will and all that.)
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote:Originally posted by PsyLiam: Except, well, they wouldn't. Because what would be the point? I can threaten to fly to my university under my own power, but it would be pointless.
Doesn't matter if the ability doesn't exist. The will is intact, and will is enough (At least, according to that "sinning in your heart = doing the deed" bit JC spoke of.)
Okay, Omega is right re: Omnipotence means you still can't do the impossible (even if your power is "infinite."
This still begs the question of whether my solution is impossible, which remains unanswered by either God or Omega.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
Could God change the gravitational constant of the universe?
On a more serious note... I'm starting to think that the ideas of Human free will and a God who actively intervenes in our world are totally incompatible.
Here's an even simpler question: if God has given Humans free will, then why should we be punished for choosing not to believe in him?
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
quote: If man is a good, and cannot act rightly unless he wills to do so, then he must have free will, without which he cannot act rightly. We must not believe that God gave us free will so that we might sin, just because sin is committed through free will. It is sufficient for our question, why free will should have been given to man, to know that without it man cannot live rightly. That it was given for this reason can be understood from the following: if anyone uses free will for sinning, he incurs divine punishment. This would be unjust if free will had been given not only that man might live rightly, but also that he might sin. For how could a man justly incur punishment who used free will to do the thing for which it was given? When God punishes a sinner, does He not seem to say, "Why have you not used free will for the purpose for which I gave it to you, to act rightly?"
St. Augustine "On the Free Choice of the Will"
Posted by Paladin181 (Member # 833) on :
Alas I have not read the entire post, four pages is a lot of reading especially about theology. But to respond to the question of why free will and punishmnet for disbelief I would like say that from what I understand of you create something or have something that can chose to give love or not, like a cat, that thing is precious to you more than a model or other inanimate thing which cannot give love only be the focus of your own love. We as humans are the same, we can give love or not, its our choice. When we chose to not believe in God as the one true God and Jesus Christ as his saviour then we are choosing freely the right to sin (which is anything counter to God's will). With that free choose we alientate ourselves to God, becuase God is pure and sin is impurity it cannot be near him and our choosing to sin makes impure (why we are sinners from the beginning stems from Adam as the federal head of man). When we choose to love God and do what he says we consciencly choosing this, we could be made to do this, but then we are nothing more than things, pecious to God but nore than a rock. By choosing we show that we are not following our own desires and following his. This purifies us and allows us to be with God, while without purity (the saving life of Christ) you must be seperated from God (Hell). I don't know if that is clear or not. The second thing that caught my attention was the Jesus studying Buddhism. Untrue, Chrsitianity and Buddhism are different in that there is one God, one saviour, sin, and a single punishment for that sin. Buddhism is a self-centered focus while Christianity is God focused. Finally, as to God changing from the Old Testiment to the New Testament. I will teach you the new word, immutable, which means unchanging. James 1:17 "Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows ." James is in the NT, and you might say, see different section differnt God, but Malachi 3:6a the last book of the OT says, "'I the LORD do not change.'" Now the names are different, but God has always been known by many names, Elohim, Jehova, LORD, Abba Father, etc. He God) is the same yesterday, today, and tomarrow and despite two differnt sections writting about him in two differnt ways that waas the society and culture that God was ministering to.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Adam, Agent from M.A.N.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Remarkable.
quote:Originally posted by Paladin181: The second thing that caught my attention was the Jesus studying Buddhism. Untrue, Chrsitianity and Buddhism are different in that there is one God, one saviour, sin, and a single punishment for that sin. Buddhism is a self-centered focus while Christianity is God focused.
So...Jesus couldn't have studied Buddhism because Buddhism has no God whereas Christianity has an obsession with singular things?
Is this like...oh, hell, I can't be arsed coming up with an analogy. I'll just say...what?
Posted by Paladin181 (Member # 833) on :
That is confusing isn't it. I guess I mean that they are two different beliefs. More importantly Christinity's morals and such come from Judism which predates Buddhism. If Jesus was God's son and God wrote the Ten Commandments for the Israelits then why would he need to study in the east to learn things like, "turn the other cheek..." or "love thy neighbor as thyself..."? Second Buddhism is another religion and it would be counter to His character to join some other religion when he made such statements as, "I am the way, the truth, and the life, no one comes to the father accept through me." And the "obsession" with singular things is called monothesis.
Posted by Paladin181 (Member # 833) on :
I mean monotheism, not monothesis which is the writing of papers with only one topic. Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Just so you know, I haven't forgotten about this thread. It's just that my teachers felt the need to cram an entire chapters' worth of stuff into the four classes before finals. I should respond within a week, tops.
Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
quote:Here's an even simpler question: if God has given Humans free will, then why should we be punished for choosing not to believe in him?
Or why should all of the animals we have driven to extinction be punished for our free will?
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
So, apparently, Yahweh said "You have free will. You can do whatever you want. Now do what I tell you or I'll kick your ass.". That's the same kind of "free will" you have as a child, or in the military. Sure, you can do whatever you want within the realm of physical possibility, but, after you do, your parent/superior is going to spank you/throw you in prison.
Paladin: So, it's your contention that any person who believes something can never ever ever ever ever ever ever in their entire life look at something having to do w/ another religion? Since Omega is a rabid Christian, there's absolutely no chance whatsoever that he's ever read a book about Buddhism? Since Rob is a deist, he can't possibly have ever read the teachings of Martin Luther? Since I'm somewhere between agnosticism and atheism, I only imagined being raised as a Catholic?
Posted by Paladin181 (Member # 833) on :
No, I contend that Jesus Christ would not study Buddhism or anyother religion on the fact that His purpose was to be the "WAY", his death allows man and God to be together again. Also He, being God, would know what Buddha or Confucious had said or even thought. To say that he need to study with Buddhist or even Pope John Paul the III is saying that He is not allknowing (omnipotent) and therefore not God. In response to free will, my understanding of freedom is not do waht ever you please when ever you please, that would be choas and anarchy. Freedom is the ability to do what ever you want within boundries, even athiest and Buddhists can agree on this. The universe has boundries like gravity we cannot, or should not, break (at least not here on earth where taking away gravity would leave our planet without atmosphere). So it is with God, he sat the rule that he would not allow sin to be in his presence, but He would allow man chose sin or life. There is a verse that says, "Everything is permissable for you, but not always benificial." It just like when you were a kid and you had a backyard with a fence and your parents said don't go over the fence into the neighbors yard. You have the ability to cross over that fence at anytime (the grass sure does look greener over there too). As long as you stay in your backyard you can do anything, but once you cross over into the neighbors yard your ability to play baseball is severly hampered because you are always watching to make sure your not caught (not to mention the neighbors have a little yappy weiner dog... grrr...). Uhh... Anyway, this post has gone longer than I intended and I need to finish a take-home final for my Philosophy of Worship Class.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"No, I contend that Jesus Christ would not study Buddhism or anyother religion on the fact that His purpose was to be the 'WAY', his death allows man and God to be together again. Also He, being God, would know what Buddha or Confucious had said or even thought. To say that he need to study with Buddhist or even Pope John Paul the III is saying that He is not allknowing (omnipotent) and therefore not God."
Oh. My mistake. I thought you were making a rational arguement.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
quote:To say that he need to study with Buddhist or even Pope John Paul the III is saying that He is not allknowing (omnipotent) and therefore not God.
Wow, time travel! Pope John Paul the THIRD?
quote:In response to free will, my understanding of freedom is not do waht ever you please when ever you please, that would be choas and anarchy. Freedom is the ability to do what ever you want within boundries, even athiest and Buddhists can agree on this.
Now you're confusing the nature of morality with theological beliefs -- which is NOT necessarily the same thing. Those "boundaries" can exist even without your god, or any other. Or are you accusing me of being a depraved evildoer simply because I don't go to church or believe in the god you tell me to?
Now, according to basic Christian beliefs, god gave me the ability to reason, and the ability to make my own decisions. I am using my powers of reason, and do not see sufficient cause to choose to believe -- or rather, I see sufficient reason to choose NOT to believe. Now, why the heck would god punish me for using the very gifts he supposedly gave me? (Assuming that some god does exist, anyway.)
And now, as a perfect example of the arrogance of religion (though I realize this is just one denomination, not all of Christianity), I give you all this link:
quote: Also among those baptized posthumously by the church, according to Radkey's research:Ghengis Khan, Joan of Arc, Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin and Buddha
obviously not picky then, these Mormons... Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Well, obviously, if God existed, and you could not see him, then you're just plain wrong, and it's hardly his fault. You've got the tools, you just weren't using them correctly.
If God existed.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Isn't the baptism of dead people by Mormons little different than the baptism of infants by Christians? In either case, the person being baptized has no say in the matter.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
I'm sure the usual suspects will throw a fit, but I'm big on self-identification when it comes to religion, the borders being so ill-defined anyway. Having said that, between the LDS and mainstream Protestantism there is probably a gap not much smaller than that between Catholics and Manicheans, back in the 300s or so.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
quote:Originally posted by TSN: Isn't the baptism of dead people by Mormons little different than the baptism of infants by Christians? In either case, the person being baptized has no say in the matter.
Well, yeah.
Although from what I recall of my history, the sacraments of Baptism and Confirmation were originally performed at the same time, back when most of the newcomers to the Church were converts. Over time that practice got perverted as people started to think that there was no other possible way.
If you go back even further, even the Jews didn't originally claim that their god was the ONLY god. The First Commandment is most basically translated as "Thou shalt have no other gods ABOVE me" -- not "other than me."
Posted by Paladin181 (Member # 833) on :
The no other god above me statement is more about the context of the time. The Israelites had just come out of Egypt, who have gods up the wazzu, and were about to travel through the wilderness and despite that ominous name their were inhabitants there who had their own gods. God, through Moses and the Ten Commandments, was merely stating his position above these other gods because the Israelities would see these others worshiping as feverently as God's worshippers and that would cause one to wonder who is better, God or Baal? By saying that He is above even the most powerfulthing in mankinds imagination (the supernatural) He is saying that he is greater. The obvious problem with all of this is whether to believe it or not. If God was the author of the Bible, through humans, then its all right and true. But if he's not the author... well then I guess I'm screwed. If he didn't write it, the only question I have is how did over a dozen different writers over two thousand years write 66 books about the same thing without any errors, incositances, or fallibilties? And have that same book be translatable to any language and be relevent to everyone? You don't have to believe any of it, I do, but the choice is yours.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
quote:The no other god above me statement is more about the context of the time.
And this does not qualify as a change? I would point out that the early books of the Bible never disclaim the existence of other gods. In fact, I believe that Moses himself (with God's help according to the story) pulled a few displays in the Court of Pharaoh to try to one-up the Pharaoh's own gods and magicians?
Does that not acknowledge the existence of other gods? Or if that part of the story is not true, then does that not discredit the idea of divine inspiration for the Bible?
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
It's Aaron who gets tapped to do the staffs into snakes trick and others, I believe, though God shows Moses how to do them first.
quote: 8 And the LORD spake unto Moses and unto Aaron, saying, 9 When Pharaoh shall speak unto you, saying, Shew a miracle for you: then thou shalt say unto Aaron, Take thy rod, and cast it before Pharaoh, and it shall become a serpent. 10 And Moses and Aaron went in unto Pharaoh, and they did so as the LORD had commanded: and Aaron cast down his rod before Pharaoh, and before his servants, and it became a serpent.
Exodus 7:8-10
I'm curious how many languages our earnest friend has read the Bible in.
Posted by Paladin181 (Member # 833) on :
If your refering to me, I have to say only one, but I do often refer back to the Greek or Hebrew texts.
Next... There is a difference between an actual god and the idea of a god. I could make up a god, give him really neat super powers, and make him a statue out of the finest marble, but it doesn't make him real; its just my imaginary god. Now the obvious response is then, what is God but an imaginary god, what has he done lately to prove himself?? Why doesn't he perform his tricks like he did on the old days, calling down fire on this and that?? To that I don't have an answer (in fact there is alot I don't have the answer to). Maybe he is, just becuase the Bible seems to be full of just the miraculous (floods, Sodom and Gohmorah, ect.) doesn't mean the God didn't and doesn't work now in a more subtle way. If he is the creator than he made the mountains and the universe, but he also made the flowers, ocean currents, and the wind. Majestic vs. subtle or inspiring, creation tells alot about God's character, he wouldn't have made flowers if he just cared about majesty and power, or vice virca (just think, a planet full of flowers and pink ponies...). What's happening now and what probably was happening in the years between those great miracles was probably just God preparing people to respond to those miracles subtly.
Again takes this with your own grain of salt, I'm just trying to answer what I know and believe for myself.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Ah, the joy of having no more finals...
it's obvious that God has had no qualms about revealing his presence to us mere mortals. And yet obviously he's also willing to strike those same people down if they choose not to believe him -- witness the Israelites.
They broke the contract, and were His property to begin with, for more than one reason. And again, He knows the possible results of His actions, or lack thereof. It's kind of a blanket cover, of course, but there's no logical flaw in it.
God literally DID reveal himself to Israel, and gave them the free will to choose. And when they chose (briefly) to NOT believe, then he was going to wipe them out! How can that possibly be considered free will?
He didn't just reveal Himself, He freed them at the same time. They were His property, and His tool to accomplish His goals. He could just as easily have left them to die in Egypt.
I submit that the Jewish God of the Old Testament is fundamentally different from the God that Jesus represented
Well, I've got a perfectly consistant theory that explains how He could be, so unless you care to find a hole in that theory...
what about the act of sending Jesus to Earth in the first place? That seems a more significant intervention in general than any specific thing Jesus would have done.
Hmm. True. However, that's intervention that gives us more choices, so maybe we can say that God intervenes so long as it's for the purpose of giving us the option to be saved. Work?
Here's an even simpler question: if God has given Humans free will, then why should we be punished for choosing not to believe in him?
Not punishment so much as the nature of existence, remember? The only way to live is to be with God, we can't be with God except through Christ, therefore we must accept Christ to live. Of course, I suppose it can also be punishment, for those who know the truth and consciously reject it.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote:I'm curious how many languages our earnest friend has read the Bible in.
It's best when read in the original Klingon.
Really.
"Original Sin" is a Klingon concept, if there ever was one.
quote:If he is the creator than he made the mountains and the universe, but he also made the flowers, ocean currents, and the wind. Majestic vs. subtle or inspiring, creation tells alot about God's character, he wouldn't have made flowers if he just cared about majesty and power, or vice virca (just think, a planet full of flowers and pink ponies...).
And mosquitos, and the ebola virus, and cockroaches, and syphilis, and piranhas, and sand fleas, and tuberculosis, and malaria, and bubonic plague, and smallpox, and anthrax, and...
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
quote:They broke the contract, and were His property to begin with, for more than one reason. And again, He knows the possible results of His actions, or lack thereof. It's kind of a blanket cover, of course, but there's no logical flaw in it.
Ah, that's so much more clear. And so when I was a one-month-old infant, before I could do anything but eat, sleep, and cry, I made a "contract" with God, and now I'm going to hell for using the powers of reasoning in a way that I think is right?
I don't see how I can have free will and be God's property at the same time. Either I have a choice to believe what I choose based on free will and reasoning based on what I see, or else I don't, and I do not have free will to make my own choices.
quote:Not punishment so much as the nature of existence, remember? The only way to live is to be with God, we can't be with God except through Christ, therefore we must accept Christ to live. Of course, I suppose it can also be punishment, for those who know the truth and consciously reject it.
As I see it, there are five billion people living in this world without your God, and though there are plenty of problems, they're no worse off for the most part than any Christian people.
What you are saying is that I have no choice but to believe in God. That is NOT free will. Not by a long shot.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
It's Stalker Free Will.
"I love you, and you can leave me if you want, but if you do, I'mma KILL YOU!"
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
More like hospital free will. You can leave, but if you do, you're gonna die.
As I see it, there are five billion people living in this world without your God, and though there are plenty of problems, they're no worse off for the most part than any Christian people.
Operative words being "as you see it".
And so when I was a one-month-old infant, before I could do anything but eat, sleep, and cry, I made a "contract" with God, and now I'm going to hell for using the powers of reasoning in a way that I think is right?
'Scuse me? Did I miss my implying this? ISRAEL had a contract with God. I said nothing about you.
What you are saying is that I have no choice but to believe in God.
Did I say that?
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"However, that's intervention that gives us more choices, so maybe we can say that God intervenes so long as it's for the purpose of giving us the option to be saved. Work?"
Did I wander into the Tech Forum by mistake? What's all this theorization? "Maybe we can say"? You admit you're pulling this stuff out of your ass as you go along?
Posted by Snay (Member # 411) on :
quote:'Scuse me? Did I miss my implying this? ISRAEL had a contract with God. I said nothing about you.
Right, so essentially we have to reword the statement to read: "There was this one month old infant, and before he (or she) could do anything but eat, sleep, and cry, he (or she) made a 'contract' with God, and now, let's say twenty years later, he (or she) is going to hell for using his (or her) powers of reasoning in a way that he (or she) thinks is right."
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
quote:Originally posted by Omega: Operative words being "as you see it".
Sounds to me like this is the pot calling the kettle black...
quote:'Scuse me? Did I miss my implying this? ISRAEL had a contract with God. I said nothing about you.
It's called "Baptism." As a Christian, you've probably heard of it...
quote:What you are saying is that I have no choice but to believe in God.
Did I say that?
Yes, you did. "The only way to live is to be with God, we can't be with God except through Christ, therefore we must accept Christ to live. Of course, I suppose it can also be punishment, for those who know the truth and consciously reject it."
Allow me to use another analogy. Perhaps you might relate to this one better, Omega.
Let's start with the metaphor of God as our "Father." That would make us "children." Children of God, as the saying goes, right? Well, based on the assumption of life after death, in Heaven, we are all spiritually little children. Either infants, or young children. Adulthood would be the equivalent of entering Heaven to live with God.
Now, for Human children on this planet, it is the parents' responsibility to teach their children, and to provide for them. And teaching them does not involve a simple three-year crash course in living. A parent must be there for their child for ten to twenty years, helping them to learn to live on their own. Providing constant help, love, advice, and care as necessary.
It would be considered bad parenting for a father to leave his two-year-old in the care of his five-year-old, and only occasionally send letters from Hawaii every few months or so after that providing advice.
Grade schools function by having adults teach classes of students a variety of lessons pertinent to their age group. As the children learn what's required, they graduate on to the next level, and eventually learn enough to live on their own.
I've never heard of a school where a teacher will teach one year of first graders and then retire, and have those first graders teach the next year's class.
I submit, therefore, that the Christian God does not exist, especially not in the way presented in the Bible, because his nature as described is wholly inconsistent with his alleged actions. Your logic is furthermore invalid. Some god might exist, but that god would see no reason for me to go to hell (if hell existed) simply because I'm using my own capacity for reason and the provided facts.
Heck, let me take this child analogy one step further. A child grows up in a household, cared for by two loving parents -- until both of those parents leave for reasons unknown when the kid is five years old. After that, the child grows up in an orphanage -- cared for, provided with anything necessary, but with only the vague memory of his parents. Later, that child graduates from college and moves far, far away, and the parents come back and are mad that the child never writes to them, never comes to visit. And so the parents go out and kill their kid because of that.
How does that make any sense?
Posted by E. Cartman (Member # 256) on :
It doesn't, but that's Omega's nature of existence for you.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Yes, you did. "The only way to live is to be with God, we can't be with God except through Christ, therefore we must accept Christ to live. Of course, I suppose it can also be punishment, for those who know the truth and consciously reject it."
This does not remove your choice. Just because leaving the hospital means that you die doesn't mean that you can't leave.
I submit, therefore, that the Christian God does not exist, especially not in the way presented in the Bible, because his nature as described is wholly inconsistent with his alleged actions.
Your analogy fails on the basis that while we are children in the sense of our knowledge, we are not children in the sense of not having the capacity to make good decisions.
Some god might exist, but that god would see no reason for me to go to hell (if hell existed) simply because I'm using my own capacity for reason and the provided facts.
Except that even God has limitations, remember. If God can not be with you except under very specific circumstances, and those circumstances do not occur, and the necessary result of not being with God is hell...
You're still stuck on the idea that hell is punishment for ALL who go there. For a lot of them, it's simply what happens if you can't be with God due to your own choices. God doesn't SEND people there, for the most part, it's simply the natural destination of everyone, short of a change in the necessary direction.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
God doesn't "send" people to hell? Okay, so if you see a blind man walk past you out into the street right in front of a speeding bus, and you consciously do not reach out and pull him back when you have plenty of time to, you may not have "sent" him to his death, but you're still responsible.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Who, exactly, are you trying to draw an analogy to?
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
That's not hard. In his analogy, "you" = God.
quote:More like hospital free will. You can leave, but if you do, you're gonna die.
Staying in the hospital is no guarantee you're going to live... especially with thousands of deaths caused each year by medical mistakes. Are you SURE that's the analogy you want to keep?
Real love, TRUE love, does NOT require reciprocity.
Nor does it require everlasting damnation for love unrequited.
Any being that can condemn something it claims to love to Hell for eternity, for the meager crime of not loving it back, has no concept of what love is. Only selfishness.
(If anybody out there read the "Sandman" comic book, there's a good example of this, and of coming to terms with the truth of it, in the story thread concerning Morpheus's relationship with Nala)
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Thousands?
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Staying in the hospital is no guarantee you're going to live... especially with thousands of deaths caused each year by medical mistakes. Are you SURE that's the analogy you want to keep?
I never said it was a perfect analogy and you know it. You understand exactly what principle I'm trying to convey, Rob. Don't be an ass.
Any being that can condemn something it claims to love to Hell for eternity, for the meager crime of not loving it back, has no concept of what love is.
OK, one more time.
God does NOT send people to Hell (at least for the most part). We're all headed there ANYWAY. God gives us the option NOT to go, but whether we do or not is up to us.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
quote:Originally posted by Omega: Just because leaving the hospital means that you die doesn't mean that you can't leave.
Well, wouldn't you want to hear the diagnosis from the doctor himself rather than some guy who feels smart because he stayed in a Holiday Inn last night? ("I'm not a doctor, but I play one on TV.")
quote:Your analogy fails on the basis that while we are children in the sense of our knowledge, we are not children in the sense of not having the capacity to make good decisions.
Oh, this is really rich. I'm using my capacity for reason, and now you're saying that my analogy of your point of view is wrong for the reason that we can use our capacity for reason?
My argument is that as physical Human beings (assuming that Christianity is correct), we have no direct experience in Heavenly matters. We have no way to understand the concepts of God completely.
Or is there some other reason why all of your arguments to this point have been riddled with speculation, supposition, and extrapolation?
quote:Some god might exist, but that god would see no reason for me to go to hell (if hell existed) simply because I'm using my own capacity for reason and the provided facts.
Except that even God has limitations, remember. If God can not be with you except under very specific circumstances, and those circumstances do not occur, and the necessary result of not being with God is hell...
The very nature of God in Christian beliefs is that he has no limits. And so if he didn't want people to go to Hell, then they wouldn't. And if he wanted people to go to Hell, then he doesn't love us unconditionally.
quote:You're still stuck on the idea that hell is punishment for ALL who go there. For a lot of them, it's simply what happens if you can't be with God due to your own choices. God doesn't SEND people there, for the most part, it's simply the natural destination of everyone, short of a change in the necessary direction.
Oh, I know very well the assertion th at Hell is supposed to be nothing more than a lack of a posthumous relationship with God. But whether God "sends" us there or whether we simply end up there, the fact remains that God could do differently.
At the very least, if he gave us free will in order to make our decisions, he could provide enough credible and reliable information to make the right decision. Someone mentioned earlier the idea of Pascal's Wager. But how about the opposite idea? That God gave us free will and the power to reason, and I'm not seeing enough reason to choose to believe? I'm convinced that if there were indeed a god who loved us all unconditionally, he wouldn't be hung up on whether or not I'm dropping by at church each week if I'm living a good and moral life.
What I'm trying to say is, from what I've been taught by other Humans, I do not rule out the possibility that Christianity is true, and that God does indeed exist. But I also do not see sufficient reason to believe anymore. I question the veracity of the sources, the accuracy of the translations passed down over the many, many years. I believe that the very concept of god originates from a number of cultural beliefs developed back when people had no idea how to explain certain things that we can easily explain today. Therefore, while it's possible that there's a supreme being out there, that being does not exist in the literal way that theologians tell us.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
My argument is that as physical Human beings (assuming that Christianity is correct), we have no direct experience in Heavenly matters. We have no way to understand the concepts of God completely.
I would probably agree with that. What point do you try to make by arguing this?
The very nature of God in Christian beliefs is that he has no limits.
Which is exactly what I denied when this started. Pay attention, please.
At the very least, if he gave us free will in order to make our decisions, he could provide enough credible and reliable information to make the right decision.
And you believe that he hasn't?
I do not rule out the possibility that Christianity is true, and that God does indeed exist.
Therefore, while it's possible that there's a supreme being out there, that being does not exist in the literal way that theologians tell us.
These are contradictory statements. You believe that it's possible, but you don't. You're allowed NOT to have an opinion, you know. You aren't obligated to choose if you can't.
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
In the final analysis, all this is moot. I have not seen any heavenly or divine manifestations, nor have I consciously heard the voice of God. I don't know if there's life after death or not. So... I'm going to do the best I can with the tools (physical and intellectual) I possess to make the world a better place before I leave it (whenever and however that might be).
I will not surrender my existence as a free-thinker and, as I cannot empirically test the existence or non-existence of God, I treat the literary artifacts that refer to God's -- any God's existence as allegorical until proved otherwise. And don't try to bombard me with more of your dogma-laden "proof". It's not testable, therefore it isn't proof -- it's opinion.
My biggest problem with any organized religion is the fact that they all require -- to some extent -- that you surrender your ability to reason for yourself and let someone else think for you... Whether that be someone who lived and died four thousand years ago and has had his words translated and re-translated and interpreted and re-interpreted dozens of times, or a Mullah who was ranting at you about your duty to Allah last Tuesday, it all thrives on ignorance, superstition, and fear.
I have a hard time talking to people who are so proud and fired up by their faith. On the one hand, I'm glad they have something that lights them up and brings joy to their lives... And on the other, I see it as an inability to confront the cosmos as it is such that they have to hide behind a comfortable notion that God is up there watching us and all we do and it's all part of a bigger plan...
*sigh* I guess it comes down to avoiding responsibility for one's life and turning it over to a concept that may or may not exist or the people who speak for Him/It... Responsibility for one's successes and triumphs as well as one's mistakes and crimes... "The Devil made me do it" or "God wanted me to succeed".
My rather heavy $.02...
--Jonah
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
quote:Originally posted by Omega: My argument is that as physical Human beings (assuming that Christianity is correct), we have no direct experience in Heavenly matters. We have no way to understand the concepts of God completely.
I would probably agree with that. What point do you try to make by arguing this?
quote:At the very least, if he gave us free will in order to make our decisions, he could provide enough credible and reliable information to make the right decision.
And you believe that he hasn't?
This goes back to my analogy of Humans as children in grade school. We have no idea of just what everything entails, aside from a few dusty old scrolls from thousands of years ago, and the teachings of an institution that has proven itself corrupt, self-serving, and even at times manipulative. I am saying that rather than old lore handed down from two thousand years ago, why not learn from the source, if it were true? I want more evidence.
And the reason I want more evidence is because as it stands, I view the Bible as a rallying cry for a persecuted culture -- Hebrews originally, and later the proto-Christians.
Which leads me into my next argument -- a rerun of "Who Watches the Watchers?" was just on this evening, conveniently. Those Mintakans had no way of explaining certain things that they saw, and so they assumed that there was some all-powerful being that controlled things. And when there was a freak thunderstorm cropping up, they assumed that that all-powerful being was angry with them, and so they decided to shoot Troi. It's based on superstitions and speculation about matters far beyond contemporary knowledge.
The Bible begins with the Book of Genesis. Perfectly logical -- because the prehistoric people wanted to learn about how their world was created. How did this world, and people and animals, and the Sun and the Moon, come to exist? They would have no understanding of cosmology and nuclear fusion creating stars and planets... or the concept of evolution... and so they figured that there was some god that started it all.
And if you take away the story of Genesis, then everything afterwards starts to unravel. What is the nature of Original Sin? Why are Humans considered innately evil because of this, and why, if Adam and Eve did not bite of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge? Why are Humans spread all across the Earth, with so many different languages and customs?
Without Original Sin, why was it necessary for Jesus Christ to come and save us? Why are Humans barred from entering Heaven because of the single choice of some maybe-mythical ancestor? Why would God present his message directly to Moses and Israel, and punish them when they went astray by not worshipping him, but sit on his proverbial hands and do nothing when the Catholic Church endorsed the Crusades in the Middle Ages?
Christianity's basically circular logic. If you break one link, the whole thing falls apart. And that's just what happened with me.
The currently accepted theory is that the Universe was created in the Big Bang. But just what caused the Big Bang? I haven't a clue... but that doesn't automatically mean that there was some god behind that creation -- there could be some kind of force beyond the universe that we have absolutely no concept of. At least, not yet.
quote:I do not rule out the possibility that Christianity is true, and that God does indeed exist.
Therefore, while it's possible that there's a supreme being out there, that being does not exist in the literal way that theologians tell us.
These are contradictory statements. You believe that it's possible, but you don't. You're allowed NOT to have an opinion, you know. You aren't obligated to choose if you can't.
No... I am saying that I believe that there is no God as any Human religion claims, but I accept the possibility that I'm wrong. I don't think I am, but I'm certainly not infallible.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
We have no idea of just what everything entails, aside from a few dusty old scrolls from thousands of years ago
Correction: we have the information ON those scrolls. You're trying to devalue that information by criticizing that which carries it, and you're not even doing a very good job of that.
and the teachings of an institution that has proven itself corrupt, self-serving, and even at times manipulative
Fine, you don't like the various religious institutions? Go by the dusty old scrolls. Just know that by denying the institution wholesale, you're simply giving yourself an out if you hear something you don't like. This Hebrew scholar shows you something about those scrolls that disproves your views? Well, he's a member of the church, and since a distantly related body did this bad thing nine centuries ago, he obviously can't be trusted.
I am saying that rather than old lore handed down from two thousand years ago, why not learn from the source, if it were true? I want more evidence.
"We have no evidence, Mr. Chekov. We simply have a theory that happens to fit the facts." Our theory just happens to fit the available facts better than any other presented.
I am saying that rather than old lore handed down from two thousand years ago, why not learn from the source, if it were true?
Again, you have to be able NOT to believe, or there's no point. There IS sufficient information to believe, or there wouldn't be a couple billion of us that do.
And if you take away the story of Genesis, then everything afterwards starts to unravel.
Agreed.
Christianity's basically circular logic. If you break one link, the whole thing falls apart. And that's just what happened with me.
I'm not sure what you see as qualifying as circular. Nor do I see what link you consider to be broken.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
quote:Originally posted by Omega: Correction: we have the information ON those scrolls. You're trying to devalue that information by criticizing that which carries it, and you're not even doing a very good job of that.
Are you even reading my arguments? I went on to say that the origins of those dusty old scrolls is because primitive Humans originally wanted to explain how the world was created. So they came up with the story of Genesis, how The Lord created the world in seven days, and how Adam and Even doomed all of Humanity for the rest of eternity to the mark of Original Sin.
What I'm trying to say is that I give the Bible about as much factual credence as you would if I started publishing a web page that started proclaiming that the great god Krblazmo was coming soon, and that if we didn't all repent and start wearing underwear on our heads, we'd be condemned to ride the Man Train for eternity.
Or to put it in less sarcastic terms, I do not accept the Bible as a literal document and take it at face value. I have considered the cultural and historical background of the civilization that wrote the book, and I think that there is an alternate explanation.
quote:Fine, you don't like the various religious institutions? Go by the dusty old scrolls. Just know that by denying the institution wholesale, you're simply giving yourself an out if you hear something you don't like. This Hebrew scholar shows you something about those scrolls that disproves your views? Well, he's a member of the church, and since a distantly related body did this bad thing nine centuries ago, he obviously can't be trusted.
Oh, for goodness' sake! Read my argument -- I don't accept the Bible as proof at all!
quote:"We have no evidence, Mr. Chekov. We simply have a theory that happens to fit the facts." Our theory just happens to fit the available facts better than any other presented.
Says you. You've got no stronger a position than I do about this. I can't prove that there's NOT a god, but you can't prove that there IS a god under the current circumstances -- and from my point of view, if you need the reminder that I'm espousing my personal opinion here...
quote:Again, you have to be able NOT to believe, or there's no point. There IS sufficient information to believe, or there wouldn't be a couple billion of us that do.
A couple billion? Yeah, maybe, if you counted all the Christians twice. And a billion Muslims, and a billion East Asian religions, and...
Just because the majority believe something is true, doesn't mean that it really IS true. If that were the case, then the world would be flat and Columbus would've been some monster's afternoon snack.
quote:And if you take away the story of Genesis, then everything afterwards starts to unravel.
Agreed.
Then I submit to you a simple and straightforward question, Omega:
What is the reason for Original Sin? Why is every single Human being ever born considered tainted from the very second that he or she is conceived? (That's basically the tenet of Christian theology -- that Humanity is innately evil and must repent through God.)
(I'm assuming that you're not a Creationist here. If you are, then just say so and forget the whole thing.)
quote:Christianity's basically circular logic. If you break one link, the whole thing falls apart. And that's just what happened with me.
I'm not sure what you see as qualifying as circular. Nor do I see what link you consider to be broken.
The circular logic is that the Bible is divinely inspired, and the Bible is used to prove God's existence.
If the Bible is true, then the Christian God exists. If the Christian God exists, then the Bible is true.
Therefore, the two sides must have identical truth values. One cannot be true and the other false. They're either both true, or both false.
The link that is broken is the theory of Original Sin, which becomes the very reason why Jesus came down to Earth and saved Mankind -- along with most of the Book of Genesis besides. I notice you didn't comment on my reference to "Who Watches the Watchers?" in my last post...
Posted by E. Cartman (Member # 256) on :
quote:(I'm assuming that you're not a Creationist here. If you are, then just say so and forget the whole thing.)
He is. Of the pesky young Earth variety, in fact.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote:Originally posted by Omega: I never said it was a perfect analogy and you know it. You understand exactly what principle I'm trying to convey, Rob. Don't be an ass.
Actually, the analogy continues to be accurate with my additions. It's just that you're not aware of it because you're wearing blinkers.
quote: God does NOT send people to Hell (at least for the most part). We're all headed there ANYWAY. God gives us the option NOT to go, but whether we do or not is up to us.
However, Got set up the conditions by which we are all headed there anyway.
I used to do the same thing with Japanese beetles when I was a kid... dump a whole cupful into water, then pick out the ones I thought "deserved" to live (mostly by arbitrary conditions, like not clustering in a ball and clambering to the top, drowning their fellow insects, but trying to swim/climb out on their own).
But unlike your version of God, I don't deny that I'm the one who put the bugs in the water in the first place.
God set up the Eden Test.
God created fallible mankind with both the capacity to resist and the capacity to fail.
God created entities (Satan, Serpent, what have you), whose primary purpose seems to be the corruption of mankind.
God gave these entities unobstructed sway over the Earth and the minds of Men, while doing very little in the way of countering their actions. He did none of the innumerable things within his power to prevent man's fall.
Man was obeying God just fine on his own, without ANY outside influences, until God allowed the Serpent to enter Eden. Only then was man in danger, due to God's negligence in abandoning His creation to two rather dull beings who were not yet capable of comprehending the 'evil' of disobedience or the unforgivability of gullibility.
No, God set conditions up in such a way that Man's fall was practically guaranteed, and still has the unmitigated gall to make the rest of us, who had absolutely NOTHING to do with it, continue to pay for it, eons later.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote:Originally posted by First of Two: I used to do the same thing with Japanese beetles when I was a kid... dump a whole cupful into water, then pick out the ones I thought "deserved" to live (mostly by arbitrary conditions, like not clustering in a ball and clambering to the top, drowning their fellow insects, but trying to swim/climb out on their own).
I bet everyone was just falling over themselves to invite you to birthday parties.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
I went on to say that the origins of those dusty old scrolls is because primitive Humans originally wanted to explain how the world was created.
Oh, I'm sorry, I was trying to ignore your unfounded opinions. If you'd like me to point out the flaws in them, i.e. that they're unfounded, I can do that, too.
I do not accept the Bible as a literal document and take it at face value. I have considered the cultural and historical background of the civilization that wrote the book, and I think that there is an alternate explanation.
Do tell.
I can't prove that there's NOT a god, but you can't prove that there IS a god under the current circumstances
The laws of physics contradict each other regarding the creation of the universe. There HAS to be a god, otherwise the universe could not exist at all, let alone in its present form. The only real question is the nature of said deity.
What is the reason for Original Sin? Why is every single Human being ever born considered tainted from the very second that he or she is conceived?
What I'm thinking is that Adam and Eve made that choice for everyone, much like that article that was posted here recently about two women purposefully choosing to have a deaf child. That choice and the ensuing curse may have irrevocably affected the basic structure of the human mind, on a genetic level.
Or it's possible that original sin isn't correct at all, and that we all just screw up really really early. Whichever.
The circular logic is that the Bible is divinely inspired, and the Bible is used to prove God's existence.
I don't belive I argued that.
I notice you didn't comment on my reference to "Who Watches the Watchers?" in my last post...
Of course I didn't. It neither supports nor defeats any argument either of us is making. It's simply an extraneous analogy to your theory.
God set up the Eden Test.
Yup.
God created fallible mankind with both the capacity to resist and the capacity to fail.
Yup.
God created entities (Satan, Serpent, what have you), whose primary purpose seems to be the corruption of mankind.
Nope. They chose to corrupt mankind, too. It wasn't God's intent when they were created. And I would point out that those entities sinned WITHOUT the tree. Why the tree when it wasn't actually necessary to test their virtue, I don't know. Much like wiping out entire cities, presumably there's a reason to do it that way rather than another.
God gave these entities unobstructed sway over the Earth and the minds of Men, while doing very little in the way of countering their actions.
You make it sound like we're all demon-possessed, or something.
He did none of the innumerable things within his power to prevent man's fall.
Again with the free will.
Man was obeying God just fine on his own, without ANY outside influences, until God allowed the Serpent to enter Eden.
Again, I would point out that sin is possible without outside influence, as evidenced by Satan himself.
Only then was man in danger
Which I deny.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
quote:Originally posted by Omega: Oh, I'm sorry, I was trying to ignore your unfounded opinions. If you'd like me to point out the flaws in them, i.e. that they're unfounded, I can do that, too.
Same to you, buddy. Same to you. Are you interested in a discussion, or shall we ignore each other?
quote:The laws of physics contradict each other regarding the creation of the universe. There HAS to be a god, otherwise the universe could not exist at all, let alone in its present form. The only real question is the nature of said deity.
I'm sorry, what was it you just said about an unfounded opinion?
A cave man stands on a hill the whole day, and watches the sun move from one side of his field of view to the opposite side. He has no idea what makes the sun shine, or cause it to change its location. So he makes up a story about a chariot of fire that drags the sun across the sky -- thus providing the origins of the Greek god Apollo.
quote:What I'm thinking is that Adam and Eve made that choice for everyone, much like that article that was posted here recently about two women purposefully choosing to have a deaf child. That choice and the ensuing curse may have irrevocably affected the basic structure of the human mind, on a genetic level.
So is that free will or predestination? And how can your God claim to love me unconditionally when I've done nothing wrong at birth, and yet I'm still considered unworthy?
quote:Or it's possible that original sin isn't correct at all, and that we all just screw up really really early. Whichever.
Oh yeah -- I must've gurgled out a few curses at my mother when I was three hours old...
quote:The circular logic is that the Bible is divinely inspired, and the Bible is used to prove God's existence.
I don't belive I argued that.
It's the very nature of your argument -- you're claiming that your Christian god exists and that the Bible is truth. It doesn't matter if you said it in so many words, it's still the meaning behind your argument.
quote:I notice you didn't comment on my reference to "Who Watches the Watchers?" in my last post...
Of course I didn't. It neither supports nor defeats any argument either of us is making. It's simply an extraneous analogy to your theory.
Then I suppose I might as well stop now. I go on the offensive by offering my point of view and an explanation for the origins of the Bible (as a series of cultural stories that developed without any real god), and you just ignore it as an "extraneous analogy."
If you'd like to have a real discussion, I'll be perfectly happy to continue. Despite the apparent hard tone my posts have had here recently, I'm probably better classified as agnostic than pure atheist, although my thoughts right now are tending towards atheism. This discussion has given me some things to think about -- but when I try to make an argument to counter your opinions, you brush it off rather than answer it. That annoys the hell out of me. You may feel secure in your opinion -- and I applaud you for your faith. But if you're going to try to convince me, you'd better use something more intelligent than calling my opinions "unfounded."
Posted by E. Cartman (Member # 256) on :
"The laws of physics contradict each other regarding the creation of the universe."
I'm eager to hear your arguments for this unfounded creationist-propagated hogwash.
Often those who are mis- or uninformed, ignorant, and uneducated are wonted to make the strongest claims. So, if you'd care to back yours up...
"There HAS to be a god, otherwise the universe could not exist at all, let alone in its present form."
Until you can convince me that you have a firm grasp of the finer points of quantum mechanics, string/m-theory and general relativity, and that you are able to accurately refute or invalidate all of them, this is nothing more than yet another Opinion-Presented-As-Fact.
"The only real question is the nature of said deity."
By your own admittance, said nature is beyond your ability to comprehend. Thus shrouding in doubt everything your beliefs are based on.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
move along... nothing to see here...
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
And again...
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
Damn. I think I accidently pressed tab and the carried on typing. And pressed enter. Several times. V. sorry.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
Sigh...
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
quote:A couple billion? Yeah, maybe, if you counted all the Christians twice. And a billion Muslims, and a billion East Asian religions, and...
From The Economist:
quote:Counting believers is difficult. The world's Christian churches claimed some 2 billion adherants in 2000, up from 1.2 billion in 1970, which is roughly in line with population growth, but still leaves Christianity a larger faith than Islam.
Other facts from the same article: 20% of western Europeans go regularly to church, compered to 14% of Eastern Europeans and 47% of Americans. The figure for Americans is those who go at least once a week. Only 2% of Americans are atheists. More than 60% of the US population is a member of a christian Church.
On the other hand...
quote:Extracts from a spoof letter... to Laura Schlessinger, a (Jewish) fundamentalist broadcaster.
...When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle... I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly ststes it to be an abomination. End of debate. i do need some advice from you, howevert, regarding some of the specific laws and how to follow them. When I burn a bull on the alter as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odour for the Lord (Lev 1:9). The problem is my neighbours. They claim the odour is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them? Most of my male friens=ds get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die? Lev. 25:44 ststes that I may possess slaves...provided they are purchased from neighbouring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, not Canadians. can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
last one...
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
quote: Extracts from a spoof letter... to Laura Schlessinger, a (Jewish) fundamentalist broadcaster.
I can't even imagine how this could be viewed as nearly approaching accurate. Annoying blowhard, sure. But the closest thing to a Jewish fundamentalist movement is Hasidism, and I will bet you ten hundred billion zillion dollars that "Dr." Laura is not a Hasidic Jew.
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
Um... The closest thing to a Jewish fundamentalist movement is Zionism -- you know, the guys currently running things in Israel and the reason I've been watching that part of the world so nervously lately...?
--Jonah
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
What? From your spy-copter?
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
No, shrinky-dink. From all the international news organizations, predominantly NPR whilst driving to and from work. I'm not a "conspiracy theorist" -- even though the U.S. government sure is startng to use a lot of Illuminati iconography...
--Jonah
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
"Zionism" is a political ideology, not a religious one.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote:Originally posted by Peregrinus: No, shrinky-dink. --Jonah
I am terribly confused. I don't even think that I have a dink. And if I did, I'm sure it's size would remain constant.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Sorry, but, out of context, that statement is just too useful.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
And how can your God claim to love me unconditionally when I've done nothing wrong at birth, and yet I'm still considered unworthy?
Because you're inherantly flawed, simply by existing as a human, would be the obvious answer. However, I'm not sure that there's a verse that claims that people are flawed when they're born. I believe the doctrine of original sin has tenuous scriptural support, at best. Correct me if I'm wrong.
you're claiming that your Christian god exists and that the Bible is truth.
Yes, but I'm NOT claiming them circularly, as you say. I claim that a God MUST exist, and that the Bible is the best, most consistant, most unique explaination as to That God's nature.
I go on the offensive by offering my point of view and an explanation for the origins of the Bible (as a series of cultural stories that developed without any real god), and you just ignore it as an "extraneous analogy."
Because that's exactly what it is. We KNOW your opinions from several instances earlier in the thread, but unless you provide any fact to back them up, all you're doing is repeating yourself.
As for the whole laws of physics thing, look at it this way:
Entropy must always increase as time moves forwards. Therefore, there must have been a point when entropy approached zero at some point in the past. Before that point, that law of physics could not exist, because the universe would have non-increasing entropy. So where'd the law come from? Similarly, if you argued that the universe didn't exist at all before that point (or before ANY point), then again, where did it come from? Mass/energy can neither be created nor destroyed. We have a structured universe that supposedly formed from an unexplained chaotic explosion, in defiance of entropy once again. The basic question is, where did all the order come from?
By your own admittance, said nature is beyond your ability to comprehend.
Beyond my ability to comprehend in it's entirity. That doesn't mean I can't have an abstract idea of it, or know the important parts.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
quote:Originally posted by Omega: Because you're inherantly flawed, simply by existing as a human, would be the obvious answer. However, I'm not sure that there's a verse that claims that people are flawed when they're born. I believe the doctrine of original sin has tenuous scriptural support, at best. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Um... and yet God is supposed to have created Man, not to mention everything else. So what you're saying is that God created something flawed and then blames it for that flaw.
How about this: cars these days are built mainly by automation. So if cars come out of the production process that are faulty, do you blame the robots, or the people who built the robots?
quote:you're claiming that your Christian god exists and that the Bible is truth.
Yes, but I'm NOT claiming them circularly, as you say. I claim that a God MUST exist, and that the Bible is the best, most consistant, most unique explaination as to That God's nature.
The flaw in your argument is the belief that the Bible is divinely inspired. Therefore, you're saying that God inspired the writing of the Bible, which is being used to prove God's existence. That seems pretty circular to me.
quote:As for the whole laws of physics thing, look at it this way:
Entropy must always increase as time moves forwards. Therefore, there must have been a point when entropy approached zero at some point in the past. Before that point, that law of physics could not exist, because the universe would have non-increasing entropy. So where'd the law come from? Similarly, if you argued that the universe didn't exist at all before that point (or before ANY point), then again, where did it come from? Mass/energy can neither be created nor destroyed. We have a structured universe that supposedly formed from an unexplained chaotic explosion, in defiance of entropy once again. The basic question is, where did all the order come from?
I have no idea. I don't pretend to have all the answers. But I refuse to jump to conclusions -- simply because I *don't* have answers and can't possibly understand most of it anyway.
Should people two thousand years ago have believed that there was some invisible man that kept things on the ground, before the concept of gravity was discovered?
Rather than presenting another analogy, let me appeal to your obvious interest in science fiction. Trek -- among other shows -- is about broadening the horizons of Human knowledge. About discovering the answers to our questions, and also to finding new questions. We learn more as time goes on. It may turn out that there really *IS* a God. But right now, I do not find consistency in the beliefs presented.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
you're saying that God inspired the writing of the Bible, which is being used to prove God's existence.
Are you even reading what I type? Let me say this very clearly. I am NOT using the Bible to prove the existence of God, and I defy you to find a place where I've done so. I simply use it as an explaination of His nature.
I have no idea. I don't pretend to have all the answers. But I refuse to jump to conclusions -- simply because I *don't* have answers and can't possibly understand most of it anyway.
And yet you deny other, perfectly valid answers...
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
quote:Originally posted by Omega: you're saying that God inspired the writing of the Bible, which is being used to prove God's existence.
Are you even reading what I type? Let me say this very clearly. I am NOT using the Bible to prove the existence of God, and I defy you to find a place where I've done so. I simply use it as an explaination of His nature.
It doesn't matter if you're using the Bible in your arguments here. Christianity has absolutely no basis without the Bible as its proof. Although there is a shitload of writings from later on, they are all entirely based on the alleged events of the Bible.
Without the Bible, your supposed higher being could be the ancient Vorlon god Boojee for all we know. Which has absolutely nothing to do with the Hebrews or Jesus.
quote:I have no idea. I don't pretend to have all the answers. But I refuse to jump to conclusions -- simply because I *don't* have answers and can't possibly understand most of it anyway.
And yet you deny other, perfectly valid answers...
Because I believe that your "valid" answers are nothing more than primitive superstitions that people have desperately clung onto for the past four thousand years for the simple fear that the lack of some higher being somehow invalidates their life. Which I'm sure that I said previously, though not so bluntly.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote:Originally posted by TSN: Sorry, but, out of context, that statement is just too useful.
It was intentional, y'know.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Because I believe that your "valid" answers are nothing more than primitive superstitions that people have desperately clung onto for the past four thousand years for the simple fear that the lack of some higher being somehow invalidates their life.
Which you have no logical reason to believe.
Christianity has absolutely no basis without the Bible as its proof.
Agreed. But again, what point are you trying to draw from this?
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
quote:Originally posted by Omega: Which you have no logical reason to believe.
The hell...? Very amusing that you're trying to invoke logic in this argument.
quote:Christianity has absolutely no basis without the Bible as its proof.
Agreed. But again, what point are you trying to draw from this?
Do I have to spell it all out for you? I'm saying that since the Bible and the Christian God are so closely linked, it's basically circular logic. Furthermore, if you remove one, the other must go as well.
I have applied the skills that I have learned as a History student (as well as some other things) to consider the Bible as a historical document. And I see a whole lot of reasons why the Bible cannot be a factual document. (Lack of external corroborating evidence for the really key issues, for one.) Furthermore, I see a large number of inconsistencies in several aspects of Christian theology.
Quite simply, I find religion to be highly illogical. And despite the exhortations for "faith," I maintain that even faith must bow to logic and consistency.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
I'm saying that since the Bible and the Christian God are so closely linked, it's basically circular logic.
And I'm saying that this is not true. Yes, they support each other, but they're also the most viable theory for the nature of the world. I don't use them to back each other up, I use the world we see to support them both.
I see a whole lot of reasons why the Bible cannot be a factual document.
Do tell.
Lack of external corroborating evidence for the really key issues, for one.
A) such as?
B) lack of external evidence, even if that were the case, would not be a reason why it MUST NOT be a factual document.
Furthermore, I see a large number of inconsistencies in several aspects of Christian theology.
Again, such as?
Posted by E. Cartman (Member # 256) on :
As for the whole laws of physics thing, look at it this way: blah
This a prime example of why the practice of homeschooling should be banned. If there's one thing I can't stand, it's people with no background in physics and no understanding of its laws and concepts WHATSOEVER who spew forth meaningless arcane gibberish. There is absolutely NO contradiction.
"Entropy must always increase as time moves forwards."
No, entropy must increase as the number of possible quantum states in which the system can BE increases. First class of STATISTICAL MECHANICS.
"Therefore, there must have been a point when entropy approached zero at some point in the past."
1) If time is infinite, entropy has a positive limit value as it approaches negative infinity.
2) If time is not infinite, the vertical offset is sufficiently large to ensure positive entropy.
"Before that point, that law of physics could not exist, because the universe would have non-increasing entropy."
Entropy CAN decrease in certain systems (like singularities) over a short timespan. First class of THERMODYNAMICS.
"So where'd the law come from?"
Random chance. Why is the gravitational constant 6.672 * 10^-11 nm^2/km^2? Why is the speed of light 299792 km/s? Why is the Planck constant 6.63 x 10^-34 J*s? Because together they form a stable configuration. One out of infinite combinations of variables. The universe works the way it does, get used to it.
"Similarly, if you argued that the universe didn't exist at all before that point (or before ANY point), then again, where did it come from?"
Damned if I know. A quantum fluctuation in an n-dimensional superspace. A collision between a shadow universe and our own. What I do know is that you do not accomplish ANYTHING by entering god into the equation.
"Mass/energy can neither be created nor destroyed."
The TOTAL energy of the universe could be zero, allowing it to spontaneously initiate. It might exist for an infinite duration of time, but renew itself right after each inflationairy phase via a collapsing Higgs-field.
"We have a structured universe that supposedly formed from an unexplained chaotic explosion, in defiance of entropy once again."
See above.
"The basic question is, where did all the order come from?"
See above.
Beyond my ability to comprehend in it's entirity. That doesn't mean I can't have an abstract idea of it, or know the important parts.
WRONG. You neither have a way of knowing the important parts, nor do you have a way of knowing WHAT those important parts ARE.
See, the thing about deities is that you have NO way of knowing ANYTHING about their nature. If you pretend otherwise, you start treading down the slippery slope of HUMAN PERSPECTIVE. You are not EXPECTED to comprehend.
And yet you deny other, perfectly valid answers...
So. Do. You.
quote:Is it not better to place a question mark upon a problem while seeking an answer than to put the label 'God' there and consider the matter closed?
But hey, labeling is easier. And as an added bonus, it neatly masks those annoying holes in your knowledge!
What you call a perfectly valid answer, I call an implausible argument using invalid inference. If god is eternal (i.e. didn't somehow come into being along with EVERYTHING else), it MUST necessarily exist OUTSIDE the spacetime continuum. You CAN'T conveniently ignore the obvious fallacy involved here (i.e. the fact that such existence is IMPOSSIBLE, omnipotence or not) regarding the origin of the universe yet MAINTAIN the aforementionted distinction.
Which you have no logical reason to believe.
He has EVERY logical reason to. If you're going to argue logic, I strongly suggest you first make sure your own is impeccable... lest it STRAINS your credibility.
Why do I get the feeling this falls on deaf ears?
[ December 24, 2002, 16:09: Message edited by: E. Cartman ]
Posted by Snay (Member # 411) on :
Deaf eyes, I think you mean Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
quote:Originally posted by Omega: I see a whole lot of reasons why the Bible cannot be a factual document.
Do tell.
I already have told. Or do you have short-term memory problems?
quote:Furthermore, I see a large number of inconsistencies in several aspects of Christian theology.
Again, such as?
Must I post absolutely everything in one message for you to look at it all?
Omega, I'm trying very, very hard here to remain civil. Therefore, I refuse to argue any further. I respect your choice to believe otherwise, and I take offense at your insistence that I may not believe what I choose to. I find it sad that you refuse to acknowledge my arguments when I've presented several facets of it over the past eight or nine pages worth of posts.
A reasonable argument is impossible when one side has his fingers stuck in his ears and is humming very loudly...
Posted by E. Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Now you know where the "automatically derisive" attitude comes from.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
I award Cartman all points, since he has an understanding of physics which obviously postdates 1975.
Omega, whatever source of physics info you're using is seriously outdated.
I knew there was a reason I wanted to write down the titles of the new physics texts I got for Mithrasfest.
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
Right now I want to get a sounding to make sure I know where the line of scientific knowledge lies here in this thread...
Many so-called "creation scientists" (I put it in quotes, as it's a mutually-exclusive oxymoron) I've seen get published seem to have an elementary-school understanding of the heirarchy of science -- the notion that when you come up with an idea it's a theory, while you test it it's a hypothesis, and when it's proved it's a law...
Reality don't work that way, Chumley. Those who actually live and work science understand a bit better than the layman. The only laws are the incontravertable and immutable physical forces acting on us, like the Law of Universal Gravitation. There's an unfortunate tendancy among the lay-readership to dismiss anything with "Theory" in front of it as an unproved hypothesis. The Theory of Evolution has long since been proved by direct observation and experiment. Move on. The General and Special Theories of Relativity have been proved quite solidly in many labs over many years, and we're now having fun using the frames they provide to find the loopholes.
The preceding has been to forestall any "evolution is just a theory" horse-hockey.
What came before the Big Bang (if that theory ends up holding its own) is an unanswerable question at our current state of knowledge and science. Calling it God and turning your brain off advances Humanity not at all.
There's mounting evidence that the Great Flood was nothing more than the Atlantic Ocean rising high enough after the last ice age to overflow the pass/strait of Gibraltar.
I mean, heck, most of Jesus' popularity is due to the gangbusters marketing efforts of the early Legitimate (post-Constantine) Christian church. Co-opting local pagan festivals and feast days and re-dedicating them to Christian saints and the Son of Man was a wonderful way to keep everyone's superstitions firmly loged in place.
I do celebrate the Twelve Days of Christmas, but not as the birth of Jesus, just as it was originally intended -- an excuse to party to welcome back the sun after the longest night of the year. Indeed, if you want to get technical (which I love to do), there was no Jesus. His name was Joshua, and he was born in April, most likely. Yeshua ben Yosef in Hebrew, which got corrupted to Iesus in the first Greek editions of the New Testament -- the Greeks having no 'sh' sound in their alphabet, and also adding the male 'us' patronymic to his name.
We also don't know God's name. That knowledge is almost certainly completely lost. It was forbidden for the Hebrew priests to write His Name, so the 'YHVE' letters were placeholders which meant, essentially, "this is where you speak the Lord's Name". However, not many Jewish priests survived the repeated enslavements, massacres, and general scattering of their people over the millennia long enough to ensure the complete verbal knowledge passed to their inheritors before their deaths. When all you have to go on is the text, without the ciphers... *shrug*
Most of that comes from a deep annoyance at seeing so many people glorifying Jesus and all but ignoring his teachings. I wince every time I see a "What Would Jesus Do?" bumper sticker, as what Jesus would do is about the most readily-accessible bit of information we have access to in the English-speaking world, and quite a few of the non-English nations, as well. My friend's girlfriend occasionally hits a tough choice in her life and prays to Jesus for guidance. His guidance is already there in print in the Gospels. If she were meditating on his teachings, I could handle that. But waiting for a touch of his divine hand is what she's talking about, and until I see some corroborating evidence of the Old Testament stories, I'm gonna chalk most of the acts of God up to exaggeration and big-fish stories (ha-ha).
I'll stop now and give someone else a chance to chime in.
--Jonah
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Sir: This is not the first time this has come up.
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
I know. I don't doubt it. It just seems one side has trouble hearing. And considering one side has facts, and the other only has opinions... *shrug* Human beings are addicted to being right. Most people alive today would rather die than admit the possibility that they might be wrong. It takes a certain courage to let go of preconceptions and let the facts lead you where they will. And considering religion's biggest draw is as a security blanket and thumb for the soul, I don't think that courage is to be found much in that crowd...
--Jonah
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
Camouflaging as a complete non sequitur and a partial reply to an earlier point at the same time, I hereby bring forth my utter distaste of the concept of "racial memory" independent of direct meme transfer, and label it repulsive new age hogwash.
The "Huh? How's this a partial reply to anything?" part concerns the Noah's Flood thing. Sure, there must have been a pretty impressive show when the Mediterranean refilled. But AFAIK, that happened about a million years ago or so, and the rerun during the most recent ice age was more disappointing than "Nemesis". The idea that mankind would really "remember" something dating a million years back (or even a hundred thousand) without each and every mother explicitly telling it as a bedside story to the kids... It's more science fiction than the concept of time travel.
Now, something like the flooding of the Black Sea is more credible, as it apparently happened well within plausible oral-tradition memory. Or at least so recently that the said memory could have carried on until the first "historical records" of the event. And big floods or droughts anywhere would certainly make for good and long-living saga material, as the subject will be brought up again and again. ("It was like this flood we now have here, but a hundred times bigger!" "Hah! I remember one a *thousand* times bigger!")
But I'd rather believe in us subconsciously remembering the water in mommy's womb than in us subconsciously remembering what happened to the Med back when our forefathers had hair in places we don't even want to think about.
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Aethelwer (Member # 36) on :
"I wince every time I see a 'What Would Jesus Do?' bumper sticker, as what Jesus would do is about the most readily-accessible bit of information we have access to in the English-speaking world, and quite a few of the non-English nations, as well."
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
One of the bozos at work had a "WWJD" bracelet from his church and was showing it off. He asked me "Do you know what this means?" I replied "Why would Jesus die?" ....I hit it off really well with that guy yo br sure!
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
. On the other hand I live in Lincolnshire which is usually several months behind everywhere else... *sigh*.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)