Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: diamondgeezer on February 26, 2004, 10:43:56 am
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/wtwtgod/default.stm
Pick a topic therin and discuss. First member to insult another is a rotten egg. Sorry if the poll doesn't cover you, but I only get 10 choices and there's a helluva lot of splinter factions out there :)
-
Aetheist. Although i don't discount the existnece of a higher power, i just don;t think it matters - surely how you live your life is more important than how you pray? And after all, some of the worst atrocities in history were committed in the name of religion.....
-
why didn't you put in Odin/Thor and all those norse gods. Well there is an "Other" option....
Actually its somewhere between agnostic, money and science. (i wouldn't call the last two "worshipping" though)
-
Yeah, count me in with Aldo there. I'm sure there's some higher order than humanity, and so far, there's not been proof enough of a scientific nature to either discount or confirm the existence of God. So, I consider myself undecided.
Though, if I may take a reference from Babylon 5, is it possible some elder species may have altered our development very early on, and to us they appear as "angels" or somesuch? (Smacks of Vorlon 'tweaking' but it's as viable a theory as any I've heard)
-
Something that puts me right off religion, certainly organised religion, is my housemate who says I'm going to hell. He's very polite about it, and doesn't preach to us (and has only once made an attempt at converting me, and that was half-hearted at best) but if I ask him he'll tell me I'm going to the basement when I die.
He says it's not that I'm a particulalry bad person. Certainly he and his church buddies drink more than I do, and the only time I've heard him mention doing any charity work is when he was chatting to an attracive young lady (in a bar) - and even then he said he'd like to, if he had the time and financial security to get away from work.
Me, I give a bit of money to Amnesty and the occasional beggar. And I'm kind to animals. And I try to avoid blaspheming in front of my religious friends. But, says my housemate, since I don't acknowledge God as my lord and master, I'm ****ed. Apparently, even someone who devotes his or her entire life to helping others, never once putting their own well-being before those of a stranger, and maybe even sets a world record for charity and spreading peace - that person will still go to hell if they don't pray to God regularly. Which I think is a ****ty attitude, betwixt you and me. Granted, I don't care where he thinks I'm going after I pop me clogs, but to put more weight in prayer and church attendance before acts of love and charity is pathetic, IMO.
JC, you're thinking of Erich von Daniken's theroies there. I like the ideas, but the man screws himself over with dodgy 'facts', hypocrisy in accusing his critics of warping or discounting the evidence to fit the theory and then doing it himself, and flat refusing to bend his ideas or accept scientific fact when it disproves his case (also something he accuses his critics of). Despite all that, I'm quite happy with the concept of space travellers playing at gods and angels. Star Trek showed how easy it was in that episode with the primitive Vulcanoids - they refused to believe 'the Picard' was just a mortal man even when he told them straight to their faces, just as a human of 2000 years ago would have looked at an astronaut with a jetpack and automatically thought 'angel'
-
True, that, DG.
I've often wondered, _why_ do churches make such a big fuss about spreading their teachings (perfect example: multiple mission trips to S. America, Africa, various third-world nations, etc..) and seem more intent in those endeavours than, say, chopping a bit of mission-tripping to help the disenfranchised here at home? I mean, for all of America's relative wealth and 'good' standard of living, there's still a fair percentage of the population that is forced to call the streets home.
-
Originally posted by JC Denton
I mean, for all of America's relative wealth and 'good' standard of living, there's still a fair percentage of the population that is forced to call the streets home.
More than you know. Amnesty send me all this bumpf that I don't want every month, and they claim that the Brazillian government, in order to prevent street urchins adversely affecting the tourism industry, uses teams of soldiers to clean the streets at night with their rifles. They say they want Brazil to stop it or face international exposure.
Note to our Brazillian members - direct any hate mail to Amnesty International, not me.
-
someone needs to write an atheist manifesto, that way, when someone bugs us about our chosen beliefs, we can quote em some bs passage to shut them up. i cant even go into a bar without some evangeletical mofo trying to convert me. ive chosen my faith (or should i say lack there of) leave me the phuck alone.
-
I'm atheist, mostly because both my parents are.
I was sent to a faith school, though, simply because there weren't any non-faith ones.
I used to be quite militant in despising relgions, mainly Christianity, due to having it rammed down my throat from an early age, but I've become more tolerant and respectful in recent years. I have quite a deal of respect for Jews, because they've taken so much **** over the years.
I still find myself shaking my head despondently when I hear people citing creationism or the second coming etc.
-
i like jews, they never bug me about religon
-
well, let's say this, if there is a God, he (or she, or it) either
a) Hates me
b) Loves me, and is therefore not very competent
c) does not give a ****.
ergo, i don't care. even if there is a higher being, i won't have proof untill I'm dead, so for now, i think there is none. If there is an afterlife it'll be a nice surprise.
on Religion in general:
note: everywhere where i say religion, faith or believe, is also mean the lack there of, ergo Atheïsm.
If someone beliefs in something, I'll respect him or her, as long as he or she doesn't try to force it on me or anyone else. Religion can be a great help to people, and it can make the do a lot of good as well. But if someone thinks they should try and convert as much people as possible, just to do "good" to secure their own place in whatever happy variant of afterlife they believe, it is bad. Wheter any belief is bad or not depends completely on the person acting on it's rules, not the rules it self.
If someone thinks they should fly a plain into a building, or prohibit someone else from marrying someone from the same sex, just on the basis of faith, the person is wrong. But if the same faith is used to set up schools, collect for charity's, or help people in poverty see hope, it is good.
bottom line: Religion good, People bad.
-
I'm atheist.
-
Originally posted by Nuke
someone needs to write an atheist manifesto, that way, when someone bugs us about our chosen beliefs, we can quote em some bs passage to shut them up. i cant even go into a bar without some evangeletical mofo trying to convert me. ive chosen my faith (or should i say lack there of) leave me the phuck alone.
Don't need one. The best points of aethism is that most of us arrive at our beliefs by ourselves rather than having them beaten into us at an early age from an external source.
-
:nod:
-
While writing i saw another few posts, so here's another bit of my worthless opinion.
I do not respect, or disrespect, anyone on the basis of his or her faith. Just because someone is a Jew, it doesn;t mean that that person is any better or worse then a Christian or a Muslim. Sure, the Jews have been the target of an awfull lot of hate, and they have been the universal scapegoat since the time of the Roamn emperors (probably earlier, not sure). But those persons aren't alive today, so why should i take those facts of history in consideration when considering the actions of a Jew today? There is no reason, everyone should be judged on his or her own actions, not those of their ancestors. The same thing goes for the generalisations of people who act on the same faith. Just because someone is Christian, doesn't mean that person would start damaging abortion clinics. Once again, judge every man or woman for his or her own actions.
-
If you'd have asked me this a year ago I was a definite aetheist, God did not exist and I could accept that.
Now, though nothings really changed in my life (and I certainly wouldn't ever consider joining an organised religion) I tend to think a little differently, like maybe there is a God.
Most certainly I feel that if there is a God, he'd almost certainly not be the wrathful vengeance bearing God that most religions harp on about either. Why create beings with free will and sentience only to impose strict rules on what they can and cannot do? I don't think that God would discriminate against people with no faith either as long as they were good people (like DG says) as he would have unconditional love for all his children.
Personally, I see religion as an outdated method of populace control which is unecessary, we have T.V for that now.
-
I'll not try and suggest that that was directed at me, but all the same. Jews get my respect for sticking to Judaism. If they act like utter twats otherwise, then they won't.
Anyone who carries on with anything in the face of great adversity deserves a measure of respect, especially people still using Windows 3.1. :P
-
Originally posted by 01010
Personally, I see religion as an outdated method of populace control which is unecessary, we have T.V for that now.
Reminds me of when you speak to that AI in Deus Ex (I forget its name. Could be Morpheus), and it talks of government surveillance being the replacement for religion.
And I agree with that, religion being the basis behind the majority of laws, and thus, populace control, as you say.
-
[color=66ff00]Ohhh, just you wait 'til Kazan sees this thread, then by god there'll be hell to pay. :D
Maeglamor believes in the perfect ideal "each to his own". :nod:
[/color]
-
Originally posted by Nuke
i like jews, they never bug me about religon
*worships God but not Jesus*
I'm Jewish. And my desktop has Windows 95. :D
I don't exactly agree with what Nuke said though. Maybe most Jews don't bug people about religion because they're either reform or conservative. If you get to know some of the more religious Jews though, you'll see that they are extreme in their beliefs. While they may not actively try to convert people like the missionaries of old, they exert a whole lot of power in Israel. Political power.
At least it seems that way sometimes. I don't know Israeli politics that well, and it confuses me sometimes. Sandwich would know a lot more than me.
-
I worship myslef. I'm so great, that's only justice.
-
Originally posted by Maeglamor
[color=66ff00]Ohhh, just you wait 'til Kazan sees this thread, then by god there'll be hell to pay. :D
Maeglamor believes in the perfect ideal "each to his own". :nod:
[/color]
Exactly, tolerance, if only the world were more tolerant of each other beliefs it'd be a good start on turning things around on this ball of rock.
I don't even think we need to imagine what Kazan's going to say. Needless to say it won't be tolerant. :)
I personally only believe religion is a bad thing when it's twisted to meet someones ****ed ideals of a perfect world, like the Islamic and Christian fundamentalists.
In fact, in my view, the only reason that we don't have Christian fundamentalist suicide bombers is because they have the US army to fight for them.
Originally posted by Petrarch of the VBB
Reminds me of when you speak to that AI in Deus Ex (I forget its name. Could be Morpheus), and it talks of government surveillance being the replacement for religion.
I thought the A.I was called Icarus wasn't it?
-
all must remember that religion has always been used as a political tool, a good reasion why a majority of laws have a religous basis. it was politics which decided what went into the good book and it could have been very easy to mask political propaganda as biblical passage. politics and religion so closely intertwine that it is very easy to confuse them. my mistrust in politics is mirored with my distrust of religon.
if a higher being sent humanity profits, commandments, and texts, such a power did it in humanity's infancy. the human race, for lack of better terminology, is an entirely different animal today than it was thousands of years ago. all the knoledge we have of god today is heavily skewed and distorted by the passage of time and the will of evil man. if there is a gog, i think that everything we know about him is wrong, as in no longer accurate.
-
Originally posted by 01010
I thought the A.I was called Icarus wasn't it?
Different one. In a locked room in Everett's place, but nevermind.
-
Originally posted by Petrarch of the VBB
Different one. In a locked room in Everett's place, but nevermind.
I never got past the Chateau in France, it crashed every time I got into the hedge maze at the back of the place, really pissed me off.
-
The mighty pound sterling.
-
where are all the muslims this morning, and i left out the ak47s for em
now where did i put the keys to the jumbo jet:rolleyes:
-
Remember all those warnings you get about where the flamethrowers and exits are when you join? I suspect you're about to find out why...
-
i never joined, i signed up when [v] closed the other board. that was before everybody came to this forum.
-
:rolleyes: You still deserve to be toasted for that comment.
-
it couldnt have been that bad
-
I'm agnostic, with a healthy dose of scientific rationalism and secular humanism.
In my less religious moments, I'm not terribly concerned with the existence of a higher power. I don't buy into the idea of a loving God, so I also don't believe in a vengeful angry God. If anything, any sort of deity does not give a damn about my existence or worship or what happens here. Any being that can create a universe has a perspective so vast that individuals within it don't matter. Its like when you pick up a brick: the atoms that the brick is made of don't matter, only the amalgamation, the corpus of the brick matters.
In my more religious moments, I believe that God is just a handy label for the supreme wave function of the universe. That doesn't happen often though.
-
[color=66ff00]BTW guys, religion threads are OK with us provided you don't turn it into a flamewar. If you can't handle that, go lookie at the other threads on the forum.
[/color]
-
Agnostic. Proper agnostic, too.
-
Atheist. I used to be agnostic, but after Mom died, I decided to stop waffling and became an atheist.
Which strikes me as a little odd, because people seem to get more spiritual after a death in the family, maybe in the hopes of seeing their loved ones again in some sort of afterlife...
As for me, I'd rather have the uncomfortable truth than ten thousand pleasant illusions. I'm never going to see my Mom again. Better that I live with that than be in denial about it. *shrugs*
Besides, being an atheist is so much less complicated. Not to mention I can sleep in on Sundays. :D
-
Agnostic. Not atheist. Agnostic. I'm cool with some uber-power, and as long as there is no concrete proof that it doesn't exist, I won't argue with someone who does.
As far as religion being the prime catalyst of war, anything can be a catalyst of war, when taken to extremes. When dosed in moderate amounts, religion is what keeps a lot of the poor and the unlucky in this world going, and despite everything an0n might say, I consider this a good thing.
And remember, at the times of the dark ages, religion was also the thing, that kept the collective human knowledge around, by storing and copying them in monasteries. And I consider this a matter-of-fact, that even if I don't believe that Allah exists, or that Jesus was the son of god, I do believe that there was more to them than the average Joe. Which is why I see no point in the why-should-we-care-about-MelGibson's-newest-movie-because-we're-all-atheists argument at all. He was the founder (or one of the founders for that matter) of something, that has affected the lives of everyone in Europe and America, so he should be respected for that. For the same reason, I believe that religious teachings should be in the school compulsory programme, not as much as a religious teaching, but more like focused history. They are embedded in the human culture so neatly, it has no point to just reject them. Remember, all of our moral values are based, to some extent on religion.
-
i just dont know if its a good idea to let the guy who played mad max be jesus, even with my atheist views.
-
Um. Dude. Mad Max bankrolled it. James "Lightning Rod" Caviziel played Jesus.
-
Originally posted by Nuke
i just dont know if its a good idea to let the guy who played mad max be jesus, even with my atheist views.
Well, unless you're referring to a different film, he didn;t. It was Jim Caveziel (SP?), Mel Gibson directed and funded it.
And probably has made a tidy profit, too.
EDIT: Beaten to it. :p
-
oh well, the only movie im waiting for is kill bill, volume 2
tarantino is god!!!
-
Originally posted by Stunaep
And remember, at the times of the dark ages, religion was also the thing, that kept the collective human knowledge around, by storing and copying them in monasteries. And I consider this a matter-of-fact, that even if I don't believe that Allah exists, or that Jesus was the son of god, I do believe that there was more to them than the average Joe. Which is why I see no point in the why-should-we-care-about-MelGibson's-newest-movie-because-we're-all-atheists argument at all. He was the founder (or one of the founders for that matter) of something, that has affected the lives of everyone in Europe and America, so he should be respected for that. For the same reason, I believe that religious teachings should be in the school compulsory programme, not as much as a religious teaching, but more like focused history. They are embedded in the human culture so neatly, it has no point to just reject them. Remember, all of our moral values are based, to some extent on religion.
I swear, I'm native English and sometimes your grasp of the language is better than mine. I totally agree with almost all of what you said there, I believe Jesus would have been viewed as more of "terrorist" than a bringer of love and peace in Roman times, just time and tide change the original facts.
Though I honestly think that morals are a natural part of higher intelligence, as opposed to being taught by an organisation. Though I think teaching morals and ethics is something that a parent should have a hand in.
-
I guess I'm agnostic.
I'm just going to wait until I die to find out what is and isn't.
And if god is real and as powerful and all knowing as the bible says, then he'd understand why somebody is skeptical about his existance.
-
Isn't this thread an oxymoron?
Atheist.
-
If there was enough scientific proof to satisfy me I would definitely be an aetheist, there is just too much that is unexplained in thorough detail for me to not consider the possibility of a higher power.
-
Originally posted by 01010
Though I honestly think that morals are a natural part of higher intelligence, as opposed to being taught by an organisation. Though I think teaching morals and ethics is something that a parent should have a hand in.
Morals are arise from intelligence. They don't have to be taught, but if they're not, they have to be reasoned out individually.
Morals are just an example of game theory applied to real life. Its all long-term/short-term risk/gain trade offs. In other words, we have morals because we can reason out justifications for our moral systems.
In the best case scenario, your morals are taught to you and you reason them through yourself to see if they hold value for you.
-
Originally posted by mikhael
Morals are arise from intelligence. They don't have to be taught, but if they're not, they have to be reasoned out individually.
Morals are just an example of game theory applied to real life. Its all long-term/short-term risk/gain trade offs. In other words, we have morals because we can reason out justifications for our moral systems.
In the best case scenario, your morals are taught to you and you reason them through yourself to see if they hold value for you.
You put it far better than I ever could. Exactly the point I was trying to convey.
-
Originally posted by Nuke
all the knoledge we have of god today is heavily skewed and distorted by the passage of time and the will of evil man. if there is a god, i think that everything we know about him is wrong, as in no longer accurate.
:yes:
Originally posted by mikhael
In my more religious moments, I believe that God is just a handy label for the supreme wave function of the universe. That doesn't happen often though.
:yes::yes::yes:
Originally posted by Stunaep
Agnostic. Not atheist. Agnostic. I'm cool with some uber-power, and as long as there is no concrete proof that it doesn't exist, I won't argue with someone who does.
I believe that religious teachings should be in the school compulsory programme, not as much as a religious teaching, but more like focused history.
:yes:
Another thing that puts me off about religion is the sheer number of splinter factions and different denominations. Mr A and Mr B are God-worshipping Christians. But A reckons women shouldn't train as priests/whatever while B is perfectly happy with it. Don't they both read the same Bible? Should their views on the subject not therefore be the same? If God left room in the Bible for interpretation by humans, then He's not going to have a whole lot of people up there in Heaven since only one of those denominations can be 100% right. A question for the Christians here who dissaprove of the gay marriage thing: do all Christians who love and worship God and lead kind and generous lives go to Heaven? Or just the ones who agree that that gay marriage is wrong?
NB - I see this turning in to a Bush-bashing thread. I'd like to avoide that as it'll get locked. I just took the gay marriage example cos it's current :nod:
And another question - I once asked, during a religion thread, if aliens from,say, Stavromula Beta landed on Earth tomorrow, would they be Christian? Would the Chrisitans be suprised to find out the aliens practice shinto? But that's not my question. A Christian member of this board told me that believing in the existence of aliens was pretty stupid. I ask you this: is believing in an invisible dude in the sky who tells you what to do any more daft-sounding? What makes me a UFO-nut and you a religious worshipper? Why are twenty guys down the road who pratice their own brand of Chrisitnaity a weird cult and not a religious denomination? You realise if religion were a new phenomenon today, and you went around telling people you live by rules laid down by the Big Guy in the Sky™ (who's invisible, BTW), you'd be either ignored, laughed at or thrown in the loony bin :nod:
Here endeth the random ramblings of DG
Who voted Budhist? If you don't mind me asking...
-
And another question - I once asked, during a religion thread, if aliens from,say, Stavromula Beta landed on Earth tomorrow, would they be Christian?
That reminds me of a cool short story, by Ray Bradbury I believe, about this guy travelling from world to world, following Jesus as *he* travels from world to world, teaching his philosophy to the various kinds of life out there. It was pretty cool.
-
Originally posted by diamondgeezer
A Christian member of this board told me that believing in the existence of aliens was pretty stupid. I ask you this: is believing in an invisible dude in the sky who tells you what to do any more daft-sounding? What makes me a UFO-nut and you a religious worshipper? Why are twenty guys down the road who pratice their own brand of Chrisitnaity a weird cult and not a religious denomination? You realise if religion were a new phenomenon today, and you went around telling people you live by rules laid down by the Big Guy in the Sky™ (who's invisible, BTW), you'd be either ignored, laughed at or thrown in the loony bin :nod:
I remember during the whole Glenn Hoddle/Handicapped people are suffering for a past life thing that one of the broadsheets ran a great cartoon. It had a picture of Hoddle sat in a class with words like reincarnation and karma crossed out and Virgin Birth and transubstantiation with ticks next to them.
The tagline was sacked for believing in the wrong kind of mumbo-jumbo :D
The cartoon was dead on. I never saw anything in his beliefs that were any less insulting than the christian attitude to gay people.
-
I voted Buddhist. I didn't like "other" so I took the only non-worship spiritual option.
Besides, Zen Buddhism is TEH ROCK when it comes to using your mind. :D
-
Originally posted by diamondgeezer
Who voted Budhist? If you don't mind me asking...[/color]
I did. :) However, I'm probably more atheistic as I do have disagreements with practically applying Bhuddism to real life, since the state of nirvanna theoretically supercedes the survival instinct which forces innovation.
-
[color=66ff00]I've never liked the argument that as we get smarter we come to realise that there is no God. I see it more as a case of as we get smarter we have less hassles in life, as a result we have less tendency to need to believe in God or a higher power.
You ever notice that less well off people in general tend to be devoutly religious?
[/color]
-
Originally posted by diamondgeezer
He says it's not that I'm a particulalry bad person.
....that person will still go to hell if they don't pray to God regularly. Which I think is a ****ty attitude, betwixt you and me. ... to put more weight in prayer and church attendance before acts of love and charity is pathetic, IMO.
Amen. Honest.
The bottom line of Christianity is this: Jesus died in our stead for the sins of the world. He offers a free gift of salvation by this act to whomever chooses to accept it. Period. That's it.
You don't have to pray 5 times a day, you don't have to go to church, you don't have to give all your money to anyone. Simple acceptance of Him as Lord and savior is all that's required for salvation.
Obviously, there are ways to live life that are recommended, but that's always the case no matter what you believe in. You don't have to be a goody-two-shoes, you don't have to help the old lady down the street with her groceries, and you don't have to live a "perfect" life. There's no sin, no evil action, no wrongdoing, that will not be forgiven. You CANNOT be "not good enough". Nobody is good enough, nobody can be good enough, and this is why Jesus gave his life for us.
And yes, He loves you, whether you accept Him or not. :nod:
Anyway, I'm not gonna apologize for the proselytizing if that's how I came across. I just wanted to set things straight once and for all; y'all know I don't usually get like this. ;)
Originally posted by Corsair
Maybe most Jews don't bug people about religion because they're either reform or conservative. If you get to know some of the more religious Jews though, you'll see that they are extreme in their beliefs. While they may not actively try to convert people like the missionaries of old, they exert a whole lot of power in Israel. Political power.
At least it seems that way sometimes. I don't know Israeli politics that well, and it confuses me sometimes. Sandwich would know a lot more than me.
Yeah, they hold massive poltical power, partially because a top rabbi can tell everyone to vote for so-and-so, and they'll all go and vote. Contrast this to the voting percentages of the secular population, which is usually less than 50%, and you can understand the political power.
I'm of 2 minds about the Orthodox Jews here. On one hand, the politically-involved ones can and do get quite corrupt. They're very self-serving.
On the other hand, they are also a balance against the rampant secularism developing here. You may value them or not, but morals here would be down the drain if not for the equalizing force the Orthodox bring to the culture.
Originally posted by 01010
Exactly, tolerance, if only the world were more tolerant of each other beliefs it'd be a good start on turning things around on this ball of rock.
Tolerance is definitely good, but I must differentiate between that and indifference. Personally speaking, I'm tolerant of pretty much anything, so long as it doesn't adversely affect the lives of others.
But indifference is something else entirely. For example, I know that the only way to salvation is through Jesus. I can be perfectly tolerant of people who do not believe as I do, but I'm not gonna be indifferent and say that it doesn't matter that they don't believe in Jesus. It does matter, and I'll say that to your face(s). I'm not gonna pressure anybody, but I'm not gonna pretend that it's "ok".
Do you see the difference?
Originally posted by diamondgeezer
A question for the Christians here who dissaprove of the gay marriage thing: do all Christians who love and worship God and lead kind and generous lives go to Heaven? Or just the ones who agree that that gay marriage is wrong?
Gay marriage is not a salvation issue. See above. Yeah, according to the Bible it's blatantly wrong, a sin, etc, (homosexual relations are), but that doesn't mean that such people cannot get to Heaven.
Originally posted by diamondgeezer
And another question - I once asked, during a religion thread, if aliens from,say, Stavromula Beta landed on Earth tomorrow, would they be Christian?
Insufficient data to answer that question. :p
Originally posted by diamondgeezer
Would the Chrisitans be suprised to find out the aliens practice shinto?
Probably, yeah, but then again so would you. :p
Originally posted by diamondgeezer
But that's not my question. A Christian member of this board told me that believing in the existence of aliens was pretty stupid. I ask you this: is believing in an invisible dude in the sky who tells you what to do any more daft-sounding?
Why do you think it's called "faith"? ;)
Actually, this is an issue I just explored with friends tonight... just what is "faith"? The Bible says that "faith without works is dead", which makes perfect sense:
If you have faith in someone, you trust that person. You can rely on them. But if you never give them the opportunity to be faithful, then what's the point of having that faith?
There's that game of trust where someone stands behind you, and you allow yourself to fall backwards, trusting that person to catch you. Yeah, you may trust the person to catch you, but unless you go ahead and take that step of faith in falling backwards, then your trust is meaningless.
So to answer your question, my faith in God, my trust in God, has been confirmed many times.... after I took the step of faith and went out on a limb. He caught me. And now I have a basis for my faith.
Originally posted by Maeglamor
[color=66ff00]You ever notice that less well off people in general tend to be devoutly religious?[/color]
They have less invested in worldly things. Money is a powerfully seductive force, and the love of money is quite capable of blinding people to anything else. Not just blinding them from God, but also from friends, family, etc.
Wow, what a post. :p
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
Tolerance is definitely good, but I must differentiate between that and indifference. Personally speaking, I'm tolerant of pretty much anything, so long as it doesn't adversely affect the lives of others.
But indifference is something else entirely. For example, I know that the only way to salvation is through Jesus. I can be perfectly tolerant of people who do not believe as I do, but I'm not gonna be indifferent and say that it doesn't matter that they don't believe in Jesus. It does matter, and I'll say that to your face(s). I'm not gonna pressure anybody, but I'm not gonna pretend that it's "ok".
Do you see the difference?
I understand, it is the nature of your beliefs to spread the word, actually, I have no problem whatsoever in the way someone like you or Setekh spreads the word, you're both perfect examples of religion that works, every person is entitled to their own opinion and as long as it's not rammed down my throat I'll always listen.
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
You don't have to pray 5 times a day, you don't have to go to church, you don't have to give all your money to anyone. Simple acceptance of Him as Lord and savior is all that's required for salvation.
Well yeah, if you buy into Christian dogma, sure. But if you don't, well, that's a whole other oyster. What about the other 2/3rds of the world who don't fall under judeochristian/muslim dogma?
Anyway, I'm not gonna apologize for the proselytizing if that's how I came across. I just wanted to set things straight once and for all; y'all know I don't usually get like this. ;)
Nah. You weren't proselytizing. It was rather a stunner coming from you. You really DON'T usually get like this. :D
On the other hand, they are also a balance against the rampant secularism developing here. You may value them or not, but morals here would be down the drain if not for the equalizing force the Orthodox bring to the culture.
You say that like being secular is a bad thing. :wtf:
But indifference is something else entirely. For example, I know that the only way to salvation is through Jesus.
Does that mean most of the world is going to be stuck without salvation? Nice guy, that Jesus.
If you have faith in someone, you trust that person. You can rely on them. But if you never give them the opportunity to be faithful, then what's the point of having that faith?
That sounds an awful lot like playing mind games. I don't have to test my wife's faith in me--I have faith its there. ;)
They have less invested in worldly things. Money is a powerfully seductive force, and the love of money is quite capable of blinding people to anything else. Not just blinding them from God, but also from friends, family, etc.
I'd like to offer an opposing, perhaps more cynical, viewpoint. Perhaps, these people are living lives that are so hard and so difficult that they have to find comfort somewhere, and that comfort for them is in believing in the nice thing that will happen later if they just endure long enough. Perhaps, just perhaps, if these people didn't have to worry about where their next meal is coming from, or how they're going to afford the mortgage payment, they could take comfort in their own works.
I'm not saying I'm right, and I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm saying that there's more than one interpretation.
And I'd like to second one 01010 said. :)
-
I am insulted that you call science a higher power
you completely miss the point when you call science a higher power - i refuse to vote in said poll until it is fixed to have a "none" option
-
Originally posted by 01010
I understand, it is the nature of your beliefs to spread the word, actually, I have no problem whatsoever in the way someone like you or Setekh spreads the word, you're both perfect examples of religion that works, every person is entitled to their own opinion and as long as it's not rammed down my throat I'll always listen.
*waves*
I've always been most bitter about religion that doesn't work. There are more than most people would readily believe. For example (I'm just making this up as I go), the assertion that "statements of truth are not naturally exclusive" (as is mostly believed by those who believe in a unification of all world religions, does not work, because the assertion itself is an exclusive statement of truth.
Anyway, that's a more theoretical one than I intended. I think that, whatever I believe, it ought to work (and I should give it an honest try before I dismiss it), or it already lies broken on the ground. Christianity happens to work, and the more I learn of it the more it works; but like Sandwich, I'll be tolerant but not indifferent to those of you who disagree (most of you).
Errr, and I stand behind Sandwich's mammoth post. Cheers, dude. ;)
-
kaz there is a 'none' option, 3rd fom last
-
I worship the Dark Lord Anubis himself.
Fear, mortals!
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
And yes, He loves you, whether you accept Him or not. :nod:
But still, that won't prevent him to send us to hell if we don't?
Lol, I call that inrequired love :p
-
i also disagree that science is a faith. science is a process of discovery. it is true that a great number of scientists are athiest. the mindest required for science requires such a person to question everything, which makes religon hard to accept.
two theries oin particular cause religion to seriously oppose science. the big bang and the theory of human evolution (the picture of the erecting monkeys). both of these theories contradict religon to such a degree that religous institutions regard science as a threat to faith. but science itself is not a faith.
-
there's also the dinosaurs that disappeared like 60 million years before god created the universe, and coutless stuff along those lines, but that's a detail :p
-
Originally posted by Nico
But still, that won't prevent him to send us to hell if we don't?
Lol, I call that inrequired love :p
I actually read something quite interesting about this very subject today.
[q]There's a difference between intrinsic value and instrumental value. Something has intrinsic value if it's valuable and good in and of itself; something has instrumental value if it's valueable as a means to an end. For example, saving lives is intrinsically good. Driving on the right side of the street is an instrumental value; it's just good because it helps keep order. If society decided that everyone should drive on the left side, that would be okay. The goal is to preserve order and save lives.
Now, when you treat people as instrumentally valuable, or only as a means to an end, you're dehumanizing them, and that's wrong. You're treating people as things when you treat them merely as a means to an end. You only respect people when you treat them as having intrinsic value.
If you were to force people to do something against their free choice, you would be dehumanizing them. You would be saying that the good of what you want to do is more valuable than respecting their choices, and so you're treating people as a means to an end by requiring them to do something they don't want. That's what it would be like if God forced everyone to go to heaven.
If God has given people free will, then there's no guarantee that everybody's going to choose to cooperate with him. The option of forcing everyone to go to heaven is immoral, because it's dehumanizing; it strips them of the dignity of making their own decision; it denies them their freedom of choice; and it treats them as a means to an end.
Go dcan't make people's character for them, and people who do evil or cultivate false beliefs start a slide away from God that ultimately ends in hell. God respects human freedom. In fact, it would be unloving - a sort of divine rape - to force people to accept heaven and God if they didn't really want them. When God allows people to say 'no' to him, he actually respects and dignifies them.[/q]
What do you think?
-
Originally posted by Kazan
I am insulted that you call science a higher power
you completely miss the point when you call science a higher power - i refuse to vote in said poll until it is fixed to have a "none" option
Aw naw!! the poll will be ruined!! Aieeeee!
-
Lol, I think it's the same: we have the freedom to not believe in it, ok, but we have to pay if we don't ( in other words: I can let you be wrong, but oh man you're so gonna regret it, for the rest of eternity, right? ). That's completly idiotic: we don't choose between heaven or hell, we chose between believing in god or not. If we don't believe in god, we don't believe in hell or heaven. So where's the link? that's awkward. You know, that sounds like a cheap reward system: " if you go to the church, you'll go to heaven, if you buy 2 cookies boxes, the third one is given". Faith is sold for something you've never seen.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
kaz there is a 'none' option, 3rd fom last
Yeah but it mixes agnostics with atheists. I really hate it when they do that cause the differerences are actually larger than between Christianity and Islam which got seperate entries.
Lumping the two together is just plain stupid. The BBC poll that started this debate lumped the two together and ended up with ridiculous statistics as a result (For instance that 33% of atheists prayed regularly :rolleyes: )
-
if you pray, you're not agnostic :doubt:
-
Science is my god. If a question can't be answered by science, then the only we ourselves can answer it.
-
Originally posted by Nico
if you pray, you're not agnostic :doubt:
Maybe but that's even more true for atheists :D
I suspect that a lot of lapsed christians etc were including themselves as atheists as well. Also agnostics can pray it's just that their prayers are somewhat directionless
"Dear whatever higher power there is......" :)
-
lol, seen like that, I call upon the name of god a lot too: god damn it! :p
Does this makes me count in, ;)
-
Originally posted by beatspete
Science is my god. If a question can't be answered by science, then the only we ourselves can answer it.
science is a process by which people aquire knoledge. any question andwered by science has been answered by people. i find your statement redudndent. its hard to define science as a god.
-
You also must consider that many people don't know what agnosticism actually is. Not "I don't know", but "I cannot know", doncherknow.
-
We really need a term for the I don't knows. They tend to get lumped in with the cannot knows because they are somewhat close in the effect it has on their lives if not in actual belief.
-
Well....truth to be told, i'm not atheist. but neither am I religious.
To a certain degree, I believe that a 'higher' being existed at one point in time, and may have played an important part in creation of the universe (as in laying the physical laws, or maybe even just creating the infinite numbers of universes so that at least 1 will have life and the right mix). But I do not believe he/she/it is here now.
Also, I do not believe in the 'ultimate' God either. There is always something bigger. If you combined this thought with other theories, technically, each individual IS god in a sense.....
-
Originally posted by Blaise Russel
Not "I don't know", but "I cannot know", doncherknow.
Oh man, I was sure before, now I'm confused. ;)
I don't know (:p), though, most of the people I know (:p) who are agnostic, have made that decision quite consciously, so they'll make sure they know what agnosticism is. Well, for the most part. ;)
-
i always thought agnosticism was the disregard of god, while athisim is the disbelief of god.
-
We really need a term for the I don't knows. They tend to get lumped in with the cannot knows because they are somewhat close in the effect it has on their lives if not in actual belief.
Yeah. The thing is, "I don't know" isn't really a position on God as much as it is a statement about oneself - it's not God that is uncertain in existence, wavering halfway between existing and not existing... it's the person who is uncertain.
i always thought agnosticism was the disregard of god, while athisim is the disbelief of god.
A-, without, -gnostic, knowledge.
-
Nuke:
Agnosticism: "We cannot know"
Atheism: "There is absolutely no evidence for the existance of one, so why should i believe in it"
What pisses me off the mosts is when people are having doubting periods and call themselves atheists when they still have supernaturalistic beliefs - then they lapsed back into their misguided theology and that theology get's to brag about having an "exatheist"
-
I guess i'd have to reclassify myself as 'agnostic' ahead of aetheistic then, as i'm not closed to the possibility of a higher power.... albeit I've mentioned my particular beliefes in a number of other places anyways.
-
Kazan you're correct. Atheists can't lapse back into religion. If you do so you weren't an atheist in the first place.
There are lots of people who classify themselves as atheists who in fact are in fact religious in one way or another so you're not the first to mislabel yourself Aldo.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
Kazan you're correct. Atheists can't lapse back into religion. If you do so you weren't an atheist in the first place.
There are lots of people who classify themselves as atheists who in fact are in fact religious in one way or another so you're not the first to mislabel yourself Aldo.
It's not so much that... I'd interpret an aetheist as someone who actively disbelieves in God, sort of an anti-Christian or whatnot.
Now, whilst I hate organised religion (or rather, the preachy nature of it and the demands it makes), the truth is that i've made my mind up not to make my mind up. If that makes sense.
So I'm not actually religious, i'm just not closed to the possibility. But i'll never be a practicising Christian or whanot, it's just not in my nature i guess.
-
aldo_14: "active" disblief is not the definition so your interpretation is false
most [real] atheists are not closed to the possibility - they just won't accept it until there is evidence
-
well, I'm an atheist, but if tommorrow there was some huge hand coming from the clouds and taping on my head, and a loud voice claiming: "hey, Nico, don't you think you're missing something?", I guess even I would turn into a christian, all atheist that I am :p
-
The problem is definitions. It's hard to quantify belief down to a simple label because different people use different terms to describe the same thing.
For instance this site (http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/ath/blathq_athorag.htm) has a definition that makes it possible to be an atheist and an agnostic at the same time. (I.e we cannot know if god exists or not so I choose not to believe in the existance of god).
It's also possible to be spirtual and agnostic (we cannot know if god exists or not so I believe that a higher power is looking over me).
Basically it's usually at this point that I start complaining my head hurst and go to have a lie down :D
Originally posted by Nico
well, I'm an atheist, but if tommorrow there was some huge hand coming from the clouds and taping on my head, and a loud voice claiming: "hey, Nico, don't you think you're missing something?", I guess even I would turn into a christian, all atheist that I am :p
I'd believe I was hallucinating first but eventually I'd be convinced too.
Denying something in the face of evidence that it's true is a rejection of the rules of science that I built my atheism on in the first place.
-
Kaz, I'm deeply sorry for any offence caused by the poll. The last thing I intended to do was insult anyone else's beliefs :)
I was just a little short on space, see, or I would have seperated them. But there was no way I was going to leave out the Almighty Dollar and Billy (people complain if you don't include comdey options on your polls :nod: ). I stuck science in there in the sense that you put might more trust and, dare I say it, faith in quantifiable hard facts than invisible chaps who claim to rule the universe...
Anyway, there's a large number of posts I'd like to reply to but in order to avoid having to make a fifty individual quotes I'll try to keep it more up to date:
Given the evidence I've seen and heard and read over the last 20-odd years, I don't see the need to bow down to a higher power of any sort. To be honest, the more I learn about the Universe, the more I feel inclined to believe that there might be a single creative force behind it all than just random physics, since it makes a lot more sense that way (and can be explained in much shorter sentances which don't induce headaches). But there is absolutely no hard evidence for the existence of a Creator - or at least no more evidence than there is for the existence of alien life or the Loch Ness Monster. So does that make me agnostic or atheist, cos you lot are all working together to confuse my definition...
Now, this Jesus fellow died for our sins I'm told. Don't take this too seriously, but I must ask you - what's he done since then? I mean, we've not seen or heard from either Jesus or his pappy for some 2000 years now aside from unsubstantiated 'miracles' here and there and the odd vision. I'm not at all convinced they're still paying attention based on that evidence. Again, no offense, but I must use the phrase 'one-trick pony'. Granted, dying for our sins is a jolly decent thing to do, except that I didn't ask him to do that for me, and I would not have done. I prefer to face up for my own actions and would not ask someone to take the rap for me. Jesus provided this service 2000 years ago, without asking me if I wanted it, and is now demanding payment for it in worship if I want in to Paradise? No chance, matey.
-
faith in the logically and evidentially supportable is not faith at all since faith is defined as belief in that which cannot be supported or proven
"shorter" != "simplier" != "more correct"
-
Dude, you need to give just a little. Makes it much easier to intereact with you :nod:
-
Originally posted by Kazan
aldo_14: "active" disblief is not the definition so your interpretation is false
most [real] atheists are not closed to the possibility - they just won't accept it until there is evidence
Well, what would be considered 'evidence' is subjective in matters of faith after all....
Regardless, going simply via
http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/a1/atheism.asp
http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/a1/agnostic.asp
i think agnosticism is probably a better team for what I believe. Based on that, aethism is more based around attempting to disprove the existence of God, whereas agnosticism is closer to my 'don't really care either way' type attitude.
Originally posted by Kazan
faith in the logically and evidentially supportable is not faith at all since faith is defined as belief in that which cannot be supported or proven
"shorter" != "simplier" != "more correct"
Remember that any belief is subjective to the person.... what is correct by modern science may turn out to be bollocks in 50,20 or even 5 years time - so 'faith' in science is the belief that the evidence used is correct.
A few hundred years or so ago, science though that world was flat......and at the end of the day, both science and religion are - in often opposed ways - attempts to understand the nature of human existence and the world.
-
i find the whole thing about jesus disturbing. he suposidly died for our sins which to us seems like a big sacrifice. from a godly persective, our world is mearly a sub-universe and death is merely a transition from one universe to another (in jesus's case it was from our world to heaven). with that in mind i dont consider that a true sacrifice (other than the fact that it probibly hurt like hell). essintially jesus went home to his daddy. i would hace been much more convinced if, say, jesus went to hell for our sins.
-
It's not like he knew Daddy wouldn't bring him back to life either. :)
DG. Existance of god is not simpler. A lot of people assume it is but it isn't. If you're comparing complexity any explaination for intelligent design needs to also explain who did it, how they did it and why. Start trying to explain that one away and the big bang actually becomes the less complicated of the two.
After all if you locked yourself away for 20 years you could probably learn enough to understand everything we know about the big bang. As for why god created the universe, theologans have been working on that one for over 2000 years and they're not much closer to an answer :D
-
aldo: stop trying to subjectivty that which is not
-
Originally posted by Kazan
aldo: stop trying to subjectivty that which is not
All of human existence is subjective to the way we percieve our surroundings. human science is simply a structured way by which we try to understand out existence, in much the same way as religion was created.
The way in which we percieve this world - and thus how we measure it - is shaped by our biological makeup. If we saw in infra red, or used echolocation, it's likely science would be completely different.
And besides which, the value of science is that it is questionable, in that we can learn more by challenging preconceptions.
Thats why I prefer scientific reasoning to religion, because it recognises not every question can be answered, and that not every answer is unquestionable.
If you view science as being 'static', as being composed of universal truths, it's no different to religion. Hell, that's why they call it 'taking as gospel'.
-
i never said STATIC - i said not SUBJECTIVE
if we saw in infra red or used echolocation it is _not_ likely our modern science would be different. Our sceince inheriently doubts our perception and verifies it with as many people as possible. Which part of the spectrum or how we maop the world around us wouldn't change it
-
science is no longer constrained to what can be humanly percieved. one has to only study quantum mechanics to understand this.
-
Originally posted by Kazan
i never said STATIC - i said not SUBJECTIVE
if we saw in infra red or used echolocation it is _not_ likely our modern science would be different. Our sceince inheriently doubts our perception and verifies it with as many people as possible. Which part of the spectrum or how we maop the world around us wouldn't change it
What we can measure with science is determined by our perception. After all, how could we know to measure what we can't percieve?
Hell,we can't even imagine or express it....
EDIT; Just an example - have you ever held an atom, or a quark, or DNA? Like, in your hand? Can you feel it, can you see it or hear it? The only way we can percieve these things is by measuring them - but we can only measure what we percieve.
It doesn;t falsify science, it's just a point that there is a degree of faith - or belief if you will - that science is the best way to represent our life. There's many ways to use that belief - some decide science is everything and discounts a higher power, some decide it's all down to God and decide it's meaningless.
Point is, you can't just piss on other peoples beliefs because of science - because science is itself a pseudo-belief structure, and also because it's not mutally exclusive to the existence of a higher power anyways.
-
Originally posted by mikhael
Well yeah, if you buy into Christian dogma, sure. But if you don't, well, that's a whole other oyster. What about the other 2/3rds of the world who don't fall under judeochristian/muslim dogma?
There is only one truth.
Originally posted by mikhael
You say that like being secular is a bad thing. :wtf:
Sorry, I was grouping secularisim with the decline of morals in the world. In my eyes, and in the "eyes" of the Bible, things such as sex with anyone other than your wife (whether you have a wife or not) are simply wrong, a sin. Yet secularisim repeats the mantra of "As long as you don't cause others harm, everything's cool. If you both consent, it's fine."
Hence the disapproval secularisim finds in my eyes, and I would hope, in the eyes of anyone who believes in the Bible as the Word of God.
Originally posted by mikhael
Does that mean most of the world is going to be stuck without salvation? Nice guy, that Jesus.
Go see The Passion, and then tell me that sarcastically.
Instead of God imposing His all-powerful will on you and I, forcing us to be "good", He provided a way out of the punishments He set down for those who sin - namely, death. His laws require a blood atonement for sin. He provided Jesus as that atonement for you and me. Yeah, I'd say that's "nice". Quite a bit more, too. :)
Of course, you can raise the question of why He set all those rules down in the first place, and why He set such a punishment for breaking those rules.
It's because He loves us. Just like a loving father will discipline his children when they do something wrong.
Originally posted by mikhael
That sounds an awful lot like playing mind games. I don't have to test my wife's faith in me--I have faith its there. ;)
Ok, that's fine - great, actually. But what good is that faith in her, or her faith in you, if you never do anything that shows your faith?
It reminds of that "game" we all played one time or another as kids.
"I know such-and-such!"
"Oh yeah? Prove it - tell me!"
"Uhmmm... No! I don't want to!"
Without substance, your faith is meaningless.
Originally posted by mikhael
I'd like to offer an opposing, perhaps more cynical, viewpoint. Perhaps, these people are living lives that are so hard and so difficult that they have to find comfort somewhere, and that comfort for them is in believing in the nice thing that will happen later if they just endure long enough. Perhaps, just perhaps, if these people didn't have to worry about where their next meal is coming from, or how they're going to afford the mortgage payment, they could take comfort in their own works.
I'm not saying I'm right, and I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm saying that there's more than one interpretation.
YEs, of course... there's immense comfort to be had in knowing that you have enough money to carry you through the month, to provide your children with a lunch for school, or to pay your bills. But humanity seems to have a veery very hard time both in finding actual joy in the possesion of money, and in knowing where to draw the line in the pursuit of money. When does it turn from need to greed?
-
Originally posted by diamondgeezer
Now, this Jesus fellow died for our sins I'm told.... what's he done since then?
Probably looking out over the world and crying. I know I would in His place.
Originally posted by diamondgeezer
I mean, we've not seen or heard from either Jesus or his pappy for some 2000 years now aside from unsubstantiated 'miracles' here and there and the odd vision. I'm not at all convinced they're still paying attention based on that evidence.
Now, let's see here. Quoting from Amos 9 verses 13-15 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&passage=Amos+9%3A13-15&version=NIV) (bold mine)
[q] 13 "The days are coming," declares the LORD ,
"when the reaper will be overtaken by the plowman
and the planter by the one treading grapes.
New wine will drip from the mountains
and flow from all the hills.
14 I will bring back my exiled people Israel;
they will rebuild the ruined cities and live in them.
They will plant vineyards and drink their wine;
they will make gardens and eat their fruit.
15 I will plant Israel in their own land,
never again to be uprooted
from the land I have given them,"
says the LORD your God. [/q]
Now where am I again? Oh yes, that's right... the Land of Israel, in the rebuilt city of Jerusalem, where we have excellent wine (pretty inexpensive, too) and delightfully fresh fruit (read Mark Twain's account of the barrenness of this area when he was here), and 3+ literally miraculous victories in wars our neighbors waged against us in the past 50 years since we've returned, opposing our being here, against multiple foes much more numerous than us.... see what I'm getting at?
150 years ago no one would have imagined in their wildest dreams that that section of Amos would - or even could - be fulfilled so literally. And yet it has. And I'm living right in the middle of fulfilled prophecy.... sooo cool. ;)
So I'd say that God's been quite busy, if you're willing to see it.
Originally posted by diamondgeezer
I prefer to face up for my own actions and would not ask someone to take the rap for me. Jesus provided this service 2000 years ago, without asking me if I wanted it, and is now demanding payment for it in worship if I want in to Paradise? No chance, matey.
And yet, if you "took the rap" for your own actions - if any of us did - then it would be impossible for us to attain entry into heaven. So you complain that His actions provide you with a way to make it there?
It's almost like feeling really sorry for yourself, and wanting to be cheerful. But when someone comes along and says, "I love you, brother - accept that and I'll cheer you up", you resent him for trying to cheer you up? Doesn't make much sense to me.
-
It's a difficult one to respond to here, as I do not believe in the Bible. Whether you believe Jesus to be the 'Son of God' or whether he was trying to tell us we are ALL the Children of God is a choice you all alone can make. Personally, I think the latter.
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
150 years ago no one would have imagined in their wildest dreams that that section of Amos would - or even could - be fulfilled so literally. And yet it has. And I'm living right in the middle of fulfilled prophecy.... sooo cool. ;)
Suppose something happens to the nation of Israel 50 years from now. Would you conceed that the prophecy must be false? Of course not.
This is the way that mediums who claim to speak to the dead work. Fling out a whole bunch of claims knowing that only the ones that come true will be noticed.
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
There is only one truth.
So basically, all the Buddhists, Hindus, Shintos and the rest are doomed to go to Hell because they never got a visit from the Christ Faerie? Its rather interesting how your minority faith gets a claim over the majority of the world.
Sorry, I was grouping secularisim with the decline of morals in the world.
I could group judeo-christian morality with the rise of slavery or the hate crimes that continue here in the American South, but that doesn't make it a true link.
Go see The Passion, and then tell me that sarcastically.
I wasn't being sarcastic. Besides, why would a movie change my mind when the Book and its followers have never been able to offer anything to sway me? I'm far less likely to have my mind changed by a MOVIE than by rational debate with my colleagues.
Ok, that's fine - great, actually. But what good is that faith in her, or her faith in you, if you never do anything that shows your faith?
It reminds of that "game" we all played one time or another as kids.
"I know such-and-such!"
"Oh yeah? Prove it - tell me!"
"Uhmmm... No! I don't want to!"
Without substance, your faith is meaningless.
If I require proof, then my faith is false. Faith is, after all, a belief that does not require proof.
YEs, of course... there's immense comfort to be had in knowing that you have enough money to carry you through the month, to provide your children with a lunch for school, or to pay your bills. But humanity seems to have a veery very hard time both in finding actual joy in the possesion of money, and in knowing where to draw the line in the pursuit of money. When does it turn from need to greed?
That's a dodge because it doesn't address the question at hand.
In science, there is a school of thought called 'positivism'. Loosely, positivism is the idea that if two explanations of a phenomena both exactly desribe and predict that phenomena, then both are interchangeable for each other and equally valid. An example of this is the wave/particle duality of light. Wave theory and particle theory are both valid, if applied correctly. Usually such dualities are signs that the theories involved are actually subsets of a larger, more complete theory.
Both your explanation of the situation and mine fit the facts. I suggest that they are interchangeable.
-
Currently undecided on religion. I've gone on about it before, so I won't again, but basically, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone (directly OR indirectly), people should be free to believe what they want without fear of persecution.
The whole fundamental-extremist thing is downright evil, IMO, because it makes everyone miserable - the extremists are miserable 'cos the world isn't being run how they want, and the rest of the world is miserable 'cos they're getting murdered.
The other thing is people who can't accept others' views or beliefs. People who say "you're a sinner because you don't believe in Allah/God/whoever, so you're going to HELL!!!11" aren't helping anybody. They're just alienating themselves from the people they're talking to, rather than trying to understand and accept that we're all different. That ain't gonna change. EVER. So just accept it and stop blowing **** up and the world can be a nice, happy, wonderful place. Alright? :)
Oh, and if i do take up a religion/belief system, then it'll be Buddhism. Actually considering it at the moment, to give me some focus and perspective on things. Dunno, thouogh, 'cos it means I have to stop drinking... :nervous: :shaking:
-
The definition of agnostic in the poll is incorrect. Agnostics believe nothing is known or can be known about the existence of deities and spirits.
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
There is only one truth.
Now that's an argument. Muslims will say the same. Shintoists too. Everybody will say the same. Let's here the reason that makes YOUR truth ( which is not the only one since MY truth is that you're completly wrong :p. Will you deny the fact that MY truth does exist? ) is the one?
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
150 years ago no one would have imagined in their wildest dreams that that section of Amos would - or even could - be fulfilled so literally. And yet it has. And I'm living right in the middle of fulfilled prophecy.... sooo cool. ;)
So I'd say that God's been quite busy, if you're willing to see it.
[/b]
All you forgot to mention was that He was working through America and the UK and other countries, without the support of whom Isarael would not have been established and without whose arms trade would have had much more difficulty in winning those wars. I don't mean to try and burst your bubble but the Jews were given that land cos the west felt pity and guilt over what had happened to them in the past. Course that's not to say that God didn't engineer that generosity, but it could have been prevented by, say, a strong challenge by an opposition leader in one of those countries.
This is dangerous territory for me cos I doubt I know more about Israeli history than you :)
But I suppose now we have to get really deep and start discussing free will. Those countries which helped establish Israel for the Jews - I say they chose to do so of their own volition. You would say that maybe that God was guiding their actions and working through them and the Jewish people to build Israel. The difference is I don't think human decision making is goverened by the Man™, I suppose.
And yet, if you "took the rap" for your own actions - if any of us did - then it would be impossible for us to attain entry into heaven. So you complain that His actions provide you with a way to make it there?
It's almost like feeling really sorry for yourself, and wanting to be cheerful. But when someone comes along and says, "I love you, brother - accept that and I'll cheer you up", you resent him for trying to cheer you up? Doesn't make much sense to me.
You're twisting what I'm saying. If I wanted to wriggle out from my responsibilites and let someone else suffer for my mistakes then Jesus' would have done me a great favour. And while I appreciate the gesture of goodwill, I maintain that my mistakes are mine to atone for - I will not unload the punishment on other people even if they volunteer and have got themselves nailed to a cross before I can even say 'thanks but no thanks'.
Again, it comes down to freedom and the right of a human being to makes his or her own decisions without God having the final say: if I want to feel sorry for myself then it's my damn right to. I personally enjoy a good sulk now and then, during which time I keep to myself and don't bother anyone else, and thus no-one else suffers because of it.
Your other mistake is to assume getting in to Heaven is everything to me - it's not. It's not the be-all and end-all of my life. I'm more concerned with how I conduct myself down here for the sake of it, not for the sake of buying myself a place in the club class of the afterlife. These debates go around in circles because the religious camp is convinced that everyone believes in and is obssessed with Heaven while the rational camp will not accept that one's life will be judged after it's over. Or something.
Anyway, the realisation I'm comming to is that my dislike of organised religion stems from my belief in the intrinsic equality of people and not liking being told what to think and do. I instinctivly rebel against any autority which hasn't commanded my respect somehow (for example my teacher is more knowledgable than me, so I do what they tell me since they probably know better) and to be honest what I've learned about religion over the years has [/i]not[/i] impressed me sufficiently. Or, that is to say, has not convinced my of the credibility of all this wonderful stuff God is meant to have done. Even your favourite argument, Sarnie, the Israel prophecy, can be explained by western politics and the hard work of regular human beings. Israel was not pulled out of a hat - that would have gotten my attention - but was built by people. I credit the dedication and suffering that was endured by the people who built Israel. I do not credit God with it as He wasn't the one busting His arse with a spade digging over the desert.
Perhaps I ought to be grateful to God for creating me and allowing me to enjoy this world? Well I am certainly grateful, but to human beings - my parents. Not God. They created me, they protected me and now I want to work hard to look after them in kind. As far as I know, no higher power has ever intervened in my life. I don't see any divine being watching over me and guiding and guarding me. And again, to be honest, if I could I'd say 'thanks but no thanks'. Just as I don't want to be dependant on my parents all my life, I wouldn't want to live in a world where every achievment I make is God's doing and not my own. I will take credit for what I achieve just as I will take responsibility for my failures.
When things go wrong I will not shrug and say 'meh, it's God's will'. When I win I will not say 'thanks for another hand-out Lord'. My life is mine to lead until God comes down here and shows me some damn good reasons to think otherwise.
[EDIT]Woolie, we've already been through that. We debated it for a page or two then dropped it and discussed more interesting topics. So if you please...
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
There is only one truth.
I can buy that. Prove me yours is right?
Thought so.
I'm inclined to agree. There is one absolute truth. Probably in religious matters as well. But face it, so far none of us have any idea what it is. That's why we call believing in God, *believing*. Because we don't know for sure.
Which is why I see no reason why not to express your opinion about god, and spread it, but to go around slap people with it, or worse, kill people because of it is just plain wrong.
Ok, that's fine - great, actually. But what good is that faith in her, or her faith in you, if you never do anything that shows your faith?
It reminds of that "game" we all played one time or another as kids.
"I know such-and-such!"
"Oh yeah? Prove it - tell me!"
"Uhmmm... No! I don't want to!"
Without substance, your faith is meaningless.
On the other hand, the virtue of marriage will be all the more beautiful, if you can trust your other half blindly, that she will not cheat on you, and will respect you, and will not talk harm about you. If you constantly have to prove your faith, it already means there is a chance of being unfaithful. Thus being faithful without proving it, is a far greater virtue than proving it all the time.
This is assuming your g/f/wife does the same, of course. I forget that sometimes. :p
-
Originally posted by mikhael
Faith is, after all, a belief that does not require proof.
That's one of the biggest misconceptions about the Christian belief. Our definition of faith is like trust. We see and hear what God has done in the past, and we believe and trust (or have faith) that he will continue to do it.
And faith isn't without evidence. If there were no evidence, it wouldn't be faith so much as wild speculation. But there's definitely a lot of evidence to support our faith. That doesn't mean it categorically proves it, just that it supports it.
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
There is only one truth.
In my line of work (lawyer), I encounter a lot of people claiming to tell me the truth. My buddy is also a criminal defense lawyer, so you know he regularly encounters clients who claim to tell the truth but who very likely aren't. By the same token, the prosecutor who's arguing against my buddy's client is also claiming to be telling the jury the truth.
So who's telling the truth? Well, the jury decides that from the evidence.
There's a lesson here, if you care to look. :D
I've encountered lots of things that were true, not just one. The only absolute truth I've ever seen is that there is no absolute truth.
Originally posted by Sandwich
Sorry, I was grouping secularisim with the decline of morals in the world. In my eyes, and in the "eyes" of the Bible, things such as sex with anyone other than your wife (whether you have a wife or not) are simply wrong, a sin. Yet secularisim repeats the mantra of "As long as you don't cause others harm, everything's cool. If you both consent, it's fine."
Hence the disapproval secularisim finds in my eyes, and I would hope, in the eyes of anyone who believes in the Bible as the Word of God.
Does that include me, Sandy? I'm a secularist and that mantra of "As long as you don't cause others harm, everything's cool. If you both consent, it's fine" is one of my most ferverently cherished beliefs. Does that make me immoral in your eyes? You've met me face-to-face on more than one occasion, Sandwich. You know that I hold to a code of honor and I live my life according to that code, including that mantra of causing no others harm. I'm a lawyer with a sworn oath to uphold the laws of the United States of America, so how can I do any less? By all rights, I am a moral man AND a secularist; the two ideas are not incompatible.
Sandwich, you know me and I consider you one of my greatest friends, despite the fact we've met only twice in person and live thousands of miles from each other. After all this time we've known each other, do you really think me immoral?
After my stating it publicly that I'm a secularist, I need to ask: do you disapprove of me, Sandwich? :(
-
Originally posted by Goober5000
That's one of the biggest misconceptions about the Christian belief. Our definition of faith is like trust. We see and hear what God has done in the past, and we believe and trust (or have faith) that he will continue to do it.
And faith isn't without evidence. If there were no evidence, it wouldn't be faith so much as wild speculation. But there's definitely a lot of evidence to support our faith. That doesn't mean it categorically proves it, just that it supports it.
Interesting. It looks like the evangelicals and fundamentalists where I live are either lying to me, or they don't understand their own religion.
When I looked up 'faith' in the dictionary, I found this:
1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4. often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6. A set of principles or beliefs.
Definition 1 might apply, but makes no claims about proof or the lack thereof. Definition 3 has a different semantic loading, specifically when combined with the example used. Definition 4 is more on topic, but irrelevant here, because this is faith in my wife. Definition 5 is on topic but does not apply, due to inapplicability to my marriage. Definition 6 applies, but again, doesn' t make any claims for or against proof.
Definition 2, however, makes a specific claim about what 'faith' is, and its relationship to proof and/or evidence.
If it will make you feel better: the only proof, the only evidence I need is the fact that she's there, right now. Does that satisfy your "testing"? She's there, that's proof enough.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
Suppose something happens to the nation of Israel 50 years from now. Would you conceed that the prophecy must be false? Of course not.
Erm... no. This particular prophecy is pretty specific about that: "I will plant Israel in their own land, never again to be uprooted from the land I have given them." Therefore, if any nation(s) succeed(s) in destroying Israel, God's word will have been proven false, God a liar, and Jesus a lunatic.
-
*presses big red button marked "do not press EVAR"*
*watches nukes rain down on Israel*
*hears God dissappear in a puff of logic*
Harsh but true
-
Originally posted by diamondgeezer
Now, this Jesus fellow died for our sins I'm told. Don't take this too seriously, but I must ask you - what's he done since then? I mean, we've not seen or heard from either Jesus or his pappy for some 2000 years now aside from unsubstantiated 'miracles' here and there and the odd vision. I'm not at all convinced they're still paying attention based on that evidence. Again, no offense, but I must use the phrase 'one-trick pony'. Granted, dying for our sins is a jolly decent thing to do, except that I didn't ask him to do that for me, and I would not have done. I prefer to face up for my own actions and would not ask someone to take the rap for me. Jesus provided this service 2000 years ago, without asking me if I wanted it, and is now demanding payment for it in worship if I want in to Paradise? No chance, matey.
[/color]
He did come back...just migrated to the far east in the form of the Sikh Gurus (around 600 years ago) and Ghandiji. Both had the same conviction, the same willingness to help and die for their sins (most of them did. A lot of Sikh Gurus were killed by the muslims, despite showing no hatred or apethy to them. Ghandiji was killed by a terrorist Hindu despite being a hindu himself. If people actually knew much about his works, you would quite literally see something almost identical to what jesus did, but in a more modern sense.) but both were ignored since they were the matters of the east, rather than that of the christians of the west.
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
There is only one truth.
All I can say to this, is that logically speaking, this is Wrong.
At humanity's level, we have different truths according to different views. Who's the say the same isn' t true (again, subjective)for God's level as well? If we have a single God, then again, we have a single style of thinking of that viewpoint (forgive my english, i have no idea how to actually put what i am thinking about).
And again, if he/she/it does see it from all angles, then it won't matter, since we still have a single way of thinking about that truth, automatically invalidating it when a different way of thinking comes into the picture, or a totally different viewpoint
This is almost totally garaunteed - as large as the Infinite number of viewpoints is, it is, after all, infinite - never ending. God may be equal to infinity, but who's to say he/she/it is larger than it? God will still have to go through those viewpoint, and as soon as one is done, there will be a million more each time. Sort of like a race where you try to catch up more and more with an opponent, but he just remains the constant distance away, despite your best attempts.
[/rant]
-
And so, btw, before the christ, before god was even considered, all the people, what happened to them? :p
-
Originally posted by Nico
And so, btw, before the christ, before god was even considered, all the people, what happened to them? :p
hmm...i guess they would just be satisfied with eating, sleeping and making children without worrying much other than the occasional predator.
-
Originally posted by mikhael
So basically, all the Buddhists, Hindus, Shintos and the rest are doomed to go to Hell because they never got a visit from the Christ Faerie? Its rather interesting how your minority faith gets a claim over the majority of the world.
Do you hold the viewpoint of there being many "truths"? I certainly don't. Jesus said "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man can come to the Father but by me." That doesn't leave much room for other ways to reach fulfilment/nirvana/God/heaven/whatever.
BTW, I've stopped wasting bandwidth hedging my statements in this thread as "my POV" or the way "Christianity views things". You all know by now that I believe in what I believe in, and that all my statements are from my POV. So forgive the lack of political correctness. ;)
Originally posted by mikhael
I could group judeo-christian morality with the rise of slavery or the hate crimes that continue here in the American South, but that doesn't make it a true link.
Yes, you could. And certainly the typical American "Christian" family isn;t setting a good example on retaining morals and being the model family... heck, divorce rates are higher within the church than without. Just goes to show what happens when people think that they're free to do anything and live life however they want, since Jesus will forgive them. Nigh on blasphemous if you ask me.
Originally posted by mikhael
I wasn't being sarcastic. Besides, why would a movie change my mind when the Book and its followers have never been able to offer anything to sway me? I'm far less likely to have my mind changed by a MOVIE than by rational debate with my colleagues.
No, I didn't mean for it to covince you to become a follower of Jesus or anything... it was simply in response to your (seemingly) sarcastic comment about Jesus allowing the world to be stuck without salvation. The movie, which portrays the last 12 hours of his life, by all accounts I've heard does an excellent job at conveying what he suffered for our sakes.
That's all I was wanting you to see in the movie - the price and the pain.
But if that comment truly wasn't sarcastic (which I honestly still find hard to believe), then nevermind. ;)
Originally posted by mikhael
If I require proof, then my faith is false. Faith is, after all, a belief that does not require proof.
No, there's a different between false and meaningless. I have faith that there's a little old lady in China who stand 5'4" tall. That faith is (most likely, and for arguments' sake, definitely) true. However, it's also a completely meaningless faith for me - unless that faith in her existance causes me to take action in one way or another - pray for her wellbeing, send her a basket of food, whatever.
Originally posted by mikhael
That's a dodge because it doesn't address the question at hand.
In science, there is a school of thought called 'positivism'. Loosely, positivism is the idea that if two explanations of a phenomena both exactly desribe and predict that phenomena, then both are interchangeable for each other and equally valid. An example of this is the wave/particle duality of light. Wave theory and particle theory are both valid, if applied correctly. Usually such dualities are signs that the theories involved are actually subsets of a larger, more complete theory.
Both your explanation of the situation and mine fit the facts. I suggest that they are interchangeable.
I agree, but you said it yourself: if applied correctly. I personally know one person who is quite well off - through her own brilliant business mind and hard work - and is quite humble and reliable with how she spends that money. Her goal is not the money.
But there are other people - a larger percentage, unfortunately - who do not have the self-discipline and wisdom to handle ever-increasing amounts of money wisely.
Originally posted by Nico
Now that's an argument. Muslims will say the same. Shintoists too. Everybody will say the same. Let's here the reason that makes YOUR truth ( which is not the only one since MY truth is that you're completly wrong :p. Will you deny the fact that MY truth does exist? ) is the one?
Of course they will. And of course Christians do too. I mean, look at it objectively for a minute... if you see a building on fire, would you run into that building screaming at those people who don't know about the ire yet that they need to vacate the premesis, or would you go in and tell people that there's a fire, and accept it when they say "I don't see it, therefore I don't believe you."
Now I know that that's what everyone says, but I'm just trying to help you see from my perspective. I know something you don't, and you refuse to believe me because you've had too many fire alerts recently that were false alarms, and besides, you don't see any fire.
Yet.
Did that make sense?
Originally posted by diamondgeezer
All you forgot to mention was that He was working through America and the UK and other countries, without the support of whom Isarael would not have been established and without whose arms trade would have had much more difficulty in winning those wars. I don't mean to try and burst your bubble but the Jews were given that land cos the west felt pity and guilt over what had happened to them in the past. Course that's not to say that God didn't engineer that generosity, but it could have been prevented by, say, a strong challenge by an opposition leader in one of those countries.
This is dangerous territory for me cos I doubt I know more about Israeli history than you :)
But I suppose now we have to get really deep and start discussing free will. Those countries which helped establish Israel for the Jews - I say they chose to do so of their own volition. You would say that maybe that God was guiding their actions and working through them and the Jewish people to build Israel. The difference is I don't think human decision making is goverened by the Man™, I suppose.
Like you said, aside from the last sentence, we agree completely. Small example, but a cool one: According to the book of Revelation, when Jesus returns and His feet touch the Mt. of Olives, it will split in 2 down the middle, north and south (a crack from east to west/west to east).
Gess what they've recently (a few years IIRC) discovered running under the Mt. of Olives? Yep - a branch of the Syrio-African rift, running from east to west.
Originally posted by diamondgeezer
You're twisting what I'm saying. If I wanted to wriggle out from my responsibilites and let someone else suffer for my mistakes then Jesus' would have done me a great favour. And while I appreciate the gesture of goodwill, I maintain that my mistakes are mine to atone for - I will not unload the punishment on other people even if they volunteer and have got themselves nailed to a cross before I can even say 'thanks but no thanks'.
I understand that, an respect you for it, even though I'm not completely convinced that you understand the ramifications of paying the wages of your actions. But we've been over that one already... ;)
Originally posted by diamondgeezer
I personally enjoy a good sulk now and then
Nothin like it in the world. :nod:
Originally posted by diamondgeezer
Israel was not pulled out of a hat - that would have gotten my attention - but was built by people. I credit the dedication and suffering that was endured by the people who built Israel. I do not credit God with it as He wasn't the one busting His arse with a spade digging over the desert.
You really should look into the formation of Israel then, because it pretty much was pulled out of a hat... or a grave, to be precise. 3 years after the Holocaust, Israel is formed and fights a defensive war against invading Arab armies from all around her. And prevails. It's really quite bizarre, and, dare I say it? Miraculous? :p
Originally posted by Stunaep
Thus being faithful without proving it, is a far greater virtue than proving it all the time.
How can one be faithful without proving it? :confused: You can have faith (in something/someone) without proving it, but you cannot be faithful without proving it.
Originally posted by Su-tehp
So who's telling the truth? Well, the jury decides that from the evidence.
Exactly... which is the truth? I merely contend that the Bible is true.
I'm not talking about little nuances of "truth", which, when you get down to it, are not really truth or untruth, but differences of opinion. "She deserved it for what she did to me / He made me feel unloved and was ignoring me" - those are differing opinions, neither of which can be said to be truth or untruth. Smell the color nine, y'know? ;)
Originally posted by Su-tehp
Does that include me, Sandy? I'm a secularist and that mantra of "As long as you don't cause others harm, everything's cool. If you both consent, it's fine" is one of my most ferverently cherished beliefs. Does that make me immoral in your eyes? You've met me face-to-face on more than one occasion, Sandwich. You know that I hold to a code of honor and I live my life according to that code, including that mantra of causing no others harm. I'm a lawyer with a sworn oath to uphold the laws of the United States of America, so how can I do any less? By all rights, I am a moral man AND a secularist; the two ideas are not incompatible.
Sandwich, you know me and I consider you one of my greatest friends, despite the fact we've met only twice in person and live thousands of miles from each other. After all this time we've known each other, do you really think me immoral?
After my stating it publicly that I'm a secularist, I need to ask: do you disapprove of me, Sandwich? :(
Chris, I consider you a person who is moral according to the ever-shifting morals of this world. I don't disapprove of your life in your situation.
But the morals you live by are not morals that I could allow myself to live by. Of course, many of them are... you're not gonna go on a killing spree, you're not gonna go break into someone's house and steal something. These we definitely have in common. But there are other ares, such as (I assume, and forgive me if I'm wrong and/or out of line) sexual relations, where we do not have the same morals. By the morals I live by, in such areas, you are immoral.
That does not mean that I disrespect you. It simply means that I try to hold myself to the stricter standards set in the Bible, whereas you try to hold yourself to the looser standards set by the world. And, I freely admit, I'm not a stranger to failure in that regard.
-
ok, this thread has offitially been a long winded course at scoring lots of points in scrabble. i hearby resign from the religion thread on account that it contradicts my belief that overexplanation of any penonema creates chaos and causes me to halluucinate and want to kill things.
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
Do you hold the viewpoint of there being many "truths"? I certainly don't. Jesus said "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man can come to the Father but by me." That doesn't leave much room for other ways to reach fulfilment/nirvana/God/heaven/whatever.
Actually, I don't hold that there's a single truth or multiple. I do hold that the one to which you cleave is, in fact, wrong. There's a distinct difference.
On what do I base this? These "facts":
- God is a careing God and treats the people of the world as His children
- God creates the world and the people in it.
- God sets up the path to salvation in such a way that only one third of the population can attain it.
- God leaves the rest to either burn or suffer for the situation which he set up.
Sorry. If that's the one and only "truth", its a law. The source of your morals is as immoral as is possible to be: He's condemned two thirds of the world for no crime other than being who and what He made them.
Yes, you could. And certainly the typical American "Christian" family isn;t setting a good example on retaining morals and being the model family... heck, divorce rates are higher within the church than without. Just goes to show what happens when people think that they're free to do anything and live life however they want, since Jesus will forgive them. Nigh on blasphemous if you ask me.
I'll let you take that up with them. They certainly seem to think that you are absolutely wrong about that. They're pretty sure that they're going to heaven because Jesus forgives them. I know: they tell me every second sunday morning when they wake me up.
No, I didn't mean for it to covince you to become a follower of Jesus or anything... it was simply in response to your (seemingly) sarcastic comment about Jesus allowing the world to be stuck without salvation. The movie, which portrays the last 12 hours of his life, by all accounts I've heard does an excellent job at conveying what he suffered for our sakes.
That's all I was wanting you to see in the movie - the price and the pain.
I can read your Book for that, and that way I don't have to pay into Mel Gibson's coffers and help push his little vehicle for self aggrandisement ever higher. But, and I ask this with the best of intentions, shouldn't you see it yourself before you recommend it?
But if that comment truly wasn't sarcastic (which I honestly still find hard to believe), then nevermind. ;)
I tell you again, I meant that in all seriousness. See, again, the first part of my response. Anyone who can be part and party to a system that damns two-thirds of His people for no crime other than being what they were made to be is immoral and cruel and not worthy of worship or faith.
I agree, but you said it yourself: if applied correctly. I personally know one person who is quite well off - through her own brilliant business mind and hard work - and is quite humble and reliable with how she spends that money. Her goal is not the money.
But there are other people - a larger percentage, unfortunately - who do not have the self-discipline and wisdom to handle ever-increasing amounts of money wisely.
You're dodging. Both interpretations are equally correct and both WERE applied correctly. The both accurately described the situation, albeit mine more cynically.
Of course they will. And of course Christians do too. I mean, look at it objectively for a minute... if you see a building on fire, would you run into that building screaming at those people who don't know about the ire yet that they need to vacate the premesis, or would you go in and tell people that there's a fire, and accept it when they say "I don't see it, therefore I don't believe you."
Now I know that that's what everyone says, but I'm just trying to help you see from my perspective. I know something you don't, and you refuse to believe me because you've had too many fire alerts recently that were false alarms, and besides, you don't see any fire.
Yet.
The difference being that I can go get a piece of wood, set it alight and take it to the person and show them, indeed, fire. Can you go get God, Jesus or Heaven itself and show it to me? Or can you only offer indirect 'evidence' (... because 'x', God must exist, because 'x' couldn't just happen!). Your argument makes sense, on the the surface, but fails under even cursory scrutiny.
Exactly... which is the truth? I merely contend that the Bible is true.
I'm not talking about little nuances of "truth", which, when you get down to it, are not really truth or untruth, but differences of opinion. "She deserved it for what she did to me / He made me feel unloved and was ignoring me" - those are differing opinions, neither of which can be said to be truth or untruth. Smell the color nine, y'know? ;)
That's easy enough. You can't prove anything outside of the realm of the universe to be 'true'. Every time you have to resort to 'faith' or 'belief' or 'religion', you are resorting to opinion (def: "a personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty").
-
god gives us free will then expects us to do as he says or go to hell
-
You know what's fun to try to do? Reconciling religion with quantum physics and string theory. It's a bit difficult, but can cause rather interesting effects. Basically, having the idea of having a God who rather than directly guiding creation, more or less weights probabilities. Rather than the rather odd one week story found in Genesis, you instead have the far more interesting eons of history of slow development. Also, there are quite a few ratios which, if off by even a small percentage, would prevent stars, let alone life, from developing. There, in my opinion, can you see the hand of God.
As a note, no reason you can't reconcile different faiths, either. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are all off the same base, and Hindu (and it's closer derivatives) often borrows concepts and figures from other religions and intereprets them as incarnations of their god/gods (it's a bit odd in that aspect.
-
Originally posted by mikhael
The difference being that I can go get a piece of wood, set it alight and take it to the person and show them, indeed, fire. Can you go get God, Jesus or Heaven itself and show it to me? Or can you only offer indirect 'evidence' (... because 'x', God must exist, because 'x' couldn't just happen!). Your argument makes sense, on the the surface, but fails under even cursory scrutiny.
But Jesus did in fact come to Earth and do miracles. Some believed him and some didn't. If somebody has made up their mind to believe or not believe, they're not going to change their mind even if someone shows them direct evidence.
And there's a lot of evidence if you're willing to look for it. People who've had their entire lives transformed after becoming Christian. Improbable historical events predicted in the Bible, like the formation of Israel. Even actual miracles, like in Biblical times - a friend of mine went on a missionary trip to India last year and was directly involved in the miraculous healing of a deaf man.
-
Can you show me the medical records that show A) the man was indeed deaf, B) the man is no longer deaf, and C) the miraculous physiological change that indeed shows that no rational, scientific explanation could possibly suffice?
I'm sorry Goob, but you're going to have to do better than that before I buy into biblical miracles. Show me how to part the Red Sea. Show me fossil evidence of a global flood within the last 6000 years. Show me how, two people can provide a viable gene pool to create such a diversity of somatypes as evidenced in the human species today, all within six thousand years. Show me one 'faith healer' that will let me put bring forward my OWN patient to be healed, one he's never seen before.
Sorry, I don't believe the hype. I don't have your faith and never will.
-
Well, actually, the flood concept is most likely racial memory, most likely referring to a massive flood somewhere between the Mediterranean and India, as it's present in multiple religions, including the Classical Greek mythology in addition to the Old Testament/Torah.
-
The last flood deep enough to cover mountains, Grey Wolf, occured long before man had developed a frontal lobe or learned that walking can be done on just two legs.
-
Oh, not that big. More like flooding a major valley or low-lying region. Then the story was passed down, and massively exaggerated. Like all stories are.
-
you havn't heard the Balck Sea flood theory?
-
Here, have a National Geographic article on it: http://www.nationalgeographic.com/blacksea/ax/frame.html
-
Groovy. There was a similar flooding of North America, but that predates human habitation.
Now, that's all well and good: as folklore and tall tales go, that's plausible. As proof God flooded the world and Noah and his little menagerie were all that survived? Nah. I don't think so.
Ah, whatever. I'm not saying that anyone else's faith in that stuff is wrong (and if I led you to understand that Sandwich, I'm sorry). I'm saying that from where I sit, its wrong. From where you sit, it might be right. Its one of those points where we have to agree to disagree. I think we will agree on the morality and the basic values, but disagree on the details and the practices, if that makes any sense.
-
I thought the flood was based on the story of Gilgamesh.
There is only one truth.
The fact that other viewpoints exist at all is the end of this idea.
"I have my way. You have your way. As for the correct way, the right way, the only way, it does not exist."
-
Originally posted by Grey Wolf 2009
You know what's fun to try to do? Reconciling religion with quantum physics and string theory. It's a bit difficult, but can cause rather interesting effects. Basically, having the idea of having a God who rather than directly guiding creation, more or less weights probabilities. Rather than the rather odd one week story found in Genesis, you instead have the far more interesting eons of history of slow development. Also, there are quite a few ratios which, if off by even a small percentage, would prevent stars, let alone life, from developing. There, in my opinion, can you see the hand of God.
If those ratios were off, we wouldn't be here talking about it, making the point of "intelligent design" behind modifying those factors moot in that scenario. Anyway reconciling quantum physics with any other of the physical sciences is hard enough without adding religion into the mix :p
-
I have many words to say but I shall only say a few. :)
Originally posted by Nuke
i find the whole thing about jesus disturbing. he suposidly died for our sins which to us seems like a big sacrifice. from a godly persective, our world is mearly a sub-universe and death is merely a transition from one universe to another (in jesus's case it was from our world to heaven). with that in mind i dont consider that a true sacrifice (other than the fact that it probibly hurt like hell). essintially jesus went home to his daddy. i would hace been much more convinced if, say, jesus went to hell for our sins.
This is a crucial misunderstanding. First, let's define a few things.
Death - this can be on many levels. I identify three main ones:
1. Death of a part of ourselves, mentally or emotionally. People don't usually use the word death to refer to this, but it is quite sensible to sometimes say that a part of us has died (eg. my sister's love for dogs, after she was bitten really badly by one).
2. Physical death. This is the most common definition of death. The physical body, which we can prod with sticks, stops functioning.
3. Spiritual death. This is a little wierder. You cannot prod the spirit with sticks. Also, it seems that most people define spiritual death as an actual continuation of the spirit in a state of pain (a la hell), as opposed to spiritual annihiliation, whereby the spirit ceases to exist.
Hell - (as per Christian definition, of course) the complete absence of God and all his benefits, and the 'place' you are when you experience spiritual death (#3 above).
Now, when you talk about Jesus dying, you seem to be referring to physical death (#2), and it would have been far more convincing had he actually been sentenced to Hell (#3). Well, I put it to you plainly that this is exactly what Jesus did - you're right, it would have made absolutely no sense had he merely physically died and went 'back' to been with his Father in heaven. However, when he died on the cross, what he was doing was taking on all the sins of the world and paying for them - receiving the punishment they required (death, both #2 and #3). He didn't return to his Father's presence, he was separated from it - that's what made it a horror. Jesus, the Son of God, was actually treated as if he himself were a sinner. It was a true sacrifice, given the facts, Nuke.
Originally posted by mikhael
Sorry. If that's the one and only "truth", its a law. The source of your morals is as immoral as is possible to be: He's condemned two thirds of the world for no crime other than being who and what He made them.
It's immoral provided you have a view of God that does not permit him to reach those two thirds of the world if he did not choose.
I think God is far more powerful than that. If God wants to reach someone, he will not be stopped by them being in a part of the world where Christianity is illegal by the state, or where a missionary has not yet walked. Consider this:
[q]Some people are born into one culture or another, but the apostle Paul said something very interesting about that when he was speaking to the Athenians. Paul was debating with some Greek philosophers, and he said:
"From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, thoug hhe is not far from each one of us." (Acts 17:26-27)
This is important because Paul's pointing out that there's a sovereign plan in creation, where each person is assigned a place of birth. God knows where we will be born and raised, and he puts us in a position where we might seek him. We are clearly told that wherever we live - in whatever culture, in whatever nation - he is within reach of every one of us. There is always the possiblity of a person crying out on their knees, "God, help me," and if that happens there are ways in which God can minister to them that are beyond our understanding.
For example, he might send someone to share the gospel with them. Or let me tell you what happened in the case of a Muslim woman who worked for a very well-known institution in her own country. She told me how she was leaving her office at the end of her day's work and was very unhappy in her heart. As she was walking, she muttered, "I don't know why I'm so empty," and after that, out of the blue, she said "Jesus, can you help me?" She stopped on the sidewalk and said to herself, "Why did I name him?" That woman ended up finding out who he was and became a Christian.
In her case, I think God saw a heart that hungered for him but did not know how to reach him in the cloister of her existence. I think this was God breaking past the barriers of her environment because she was already breaking through the barriers of her inner life, seeking after him. God can reach into any cultural situation in response to anyone who wants to know him.
Another way of looking at this issue comes from Romans, where Paul says God's infinite power and deity are revealed to everyone through creation (Romans 1:20). Then Paul says God put the law (morals) in our hearts and our consciences that we might seek after him (Romans 2:14-15). And he walks about the word of Christ that is necessary for a person to come to know him. I think more and more that this word of Christ comes within the framework of different cultures.
Virtually every Muslim who has come to follow Christ has done so, first, because of the love fo Christ expressed through a Christian, or second, because of a vision, a dream, or some other supernatural intervention. Now, no religion has a more intricate doctrine of angels and visions than Islam, and I think it's extraordinary that God uses that sensitivity to the supernatural world in which he speaks in visions amd dreams and reveals himself.
One of India's converts was a Sikh, Sundar Singh, who came to know Christ through an apprearance of Christ in his room in a dream one night. It had been a tremendous impact on his life and he became a Christian. So there are ways that God can reveal himself that go far beyond our own understanding.
If God is able to give the word of Christ in various settings in ways we can't even understanding - if he's not far from us wherever we are, if he is able to speak through the general revelation of creation and through our conscience - then we have to accept the fact that we are without excuse. Every human being will know enough truth so that if they respond to that known truth, God will reveal more to them. Does that mean they have to have as much of a volume of truth as someone in another setting does? I don't believe so.
If a person genuinely and sincerely seeks after God, there will be some way he makes available for that person to her of him. If that person would not have responded to God under any circumstance, then perhaps he will not hear of him.
And additionally, the amount of information a person needs to have concerning Christ for salvatio ncan vary widely. The danger of a Western perspective is thinking that if something isn't neatly packaged, it's no good. Some Western Christians think that unless a person says the creed just like they do, they don't know God.
Yet what does an infant know of his mother? He knows she nourishes him, she changes him, she embraces him, she kisses him - she must be a friend. That child doesn't know his mother as well as he will when he's eighteen. But he knows her enough to love her. I believe that as God reveals himself there are levels of understanding that are bound to vary.[/q]
Thoughts, Mik?
-
so Jesus is in hell...
that's new
-
Was, Bob. Now he's in heaven.
-
oh, so it wasn't exactly eternal damnation then.
how long was he in there 3 days?
-
3 days in our time, yep. Hell != eternal damnation, though if you were eternally damned you would certainly be in hell. Kinda like squares and rectangles, if you know what I mean.
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
How can one be faithful without proving it? :confused: You can have faith (in something/someone) without proving it, but you cannot be faithful without proving it.
I assumed we were talking about proving it to another being. God or whoever. Since the marital metaphor seems to be popular here, let me phrase it this way.
Say you're married. You do all the things a married man is supposed to do. You don't cheat on her, you don't mock her in public or private, you generally love and protect her. Do you go to her every night, and say, "dear wife, today I protected you, I didn't cheat on you, I said only good things about you."
No you don't. Neither does she. And yet (in an ideal marriage, and these things do exist), you're faithful to one another.
And the simplest argument of all, if God is supposed to be almighty and some such, and he is supposed to know whether you believe in him or not, what's the point in praying, going to church et. al. at all? He'll know
-
Originally posted by Stunaep
And the simplest argument of all, if God is supposed to be almighty and some such, and he is supposed to know whether you believe in him or not, what's the point in praying, going to church et. al. at all? He'll know
He'll know what, exactly? That you "believe" in him? The belief, assuming that it is genuine, will certainly result in action, as belief does in all other circumstances (you believe you need to eat an antidote to live, so you eat the antidote). Praying, going to church are evidences of belief, like smoke from fire. It's not the actions that save you, but the actions show that faith is genuine.
-
Originally posted by mikhael
Actually, I don't hold that there's a single truth or multiple. I do hold that the one to which you cleave is, in fact, wrong. There's a distinct difference.
And I realize and respect that. All I'm trying to get across in this part is that I believe/know otherwise, and am compelled to act upon what I believe/know to be true.
Originally posted by mikhael
- God sets up the path to salvation in such a way that only one third of the population can attain it.
- God leaves the rest to either burn or suffer for the situation which he set up.
Sorry. If that's the one and only "truth", its a law. The source of your morals is as immoral as is possible to be: He's condemned two thirds of the world for no crime other than being who and what He made them.[/B]
And here's the big conflict between God's soverignty and Man's free will. God created us with free will, but He also set us rules we should follow. Rules that we think of as our conscience, indicating whether something is "right" or "wrong", "good" or "bad". He fully honors that free will, and allows us to break those rules which he defined in us. But for every wrong, justice must be done, otherwise there's no point in having said rules.
And I trust I do not need to explain why there is a need for such rules in the first place. I would hazard a guess that humanity as a race would not have survived as long as it has if everyone was completely and utterly free to do whatever they wished, without any moral compunctions whatsoever.
Originally posted by mikhael
I'll let you take that up with them. They certainly seem to think that you are absolutely wrong about that. They're pretty sure that they're going to heaven because Jesus forgives them. I know: they tell me every second sunday morning when they wake me up.
No, I'm not saying they won't go to heaven. I'm saying that some people take advantage of God's forgiveness, which is (obviously, I would think) wrong. God will still forgive them if they repent, but true repentence involves a change of heart, a purposing not to do whatever it is you're repenting from. I personally don't believe that if a person commits a sin, asks God for forgiveness, and then casually goes on in that same sin, that God will be fooled.
Originally posted by mikhael
I can read your Book for that, and that way I don't have to pay into Mel Gibson's coffers and help push his little vehicle for self aggrandisement ever higher. But, and I ask this with the best of intentions, shouldn't you see it yourself before you recommend it?
You're right - I really should see it. And as soon as I am able to (it isn't decided whether it'll be allowed to be shown here or not yet), I will. But I'm going out on a limb from what reviews I've read and, more on a personal level, someone I know and trust who has seen it and brought back a good report.
Originally posted by mikhael
You're dodging. Both interpretations are equally correct and both WERE applied correctly. The both accurately described the situation, albeit mine more cynically.
I certainly wasn't trying to dodge, so if it came out that way, I apologize.
Originally posted by mikhael
That's easy enough. You can't prove anything outside of the realm of the universe to be 'true'. Every time you have to resort to 'faith' or 'belief' or 'religion', you are resorting to opinion (def: "a personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty").
Correct. :)
Originally posted by Grey Wolf 2009
As a note, no reason you can't reconcile different faiths, either. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are all off the same base, and Hindu (and it's closer derivatives) often borrows concepts and figures from other religions and intereprets them as incarnations of their god/gods (it's a bit odd in that aspect.
If you truly think so, then you do not understand the basic tenets of said faiths. Quick example: inscribed around the inside of the Dome of the Rock, one of Islam's holy shrines, is (in Arabic) "There is no God but Allah, and He has no son."
Direct and irreconcilable contradiction to Christianity. Anyone who thinks that the God of the Bible is the same as Allah is either misinformed, blind, or stupid - no offense to you, GW, since I trust you were misinformed. :)
Originally posted by mikhael
Show me one 'faith healer' that will let me put bring forward my OWN patient to be healed, one he's never seen before.
On the condition that that person wants to be healed, and is not simply trying to prove or disprove a point, sure. I know someone who God has used to heal many people's back problems, which more often than not are a result of differences in leg lengths. If you know of anyone with back problems, and is willing to receive supernatural healing, then there is only the minor problem of distance to overcome.
Originally posted by mikhael
Ah, whatever. I'm not saying that anyone else's faith in that stuff is wrong (and if I led you to understand that Sandwich, I'm sorry). I'm saying that from where I sit, its wrong. From where you sit, it might be right. Its one of those points where we have to agree to disagree.
I agree completely. :)
Originally posted by Mr. Vega
The fact that other viewpoints exist at all is the end of this idea.
"I have my way. You have your way. As for the correct way, the right way, the only way, it does not exist."
Viewpoints = opinions. Truth is not subject to how people see it. Either the chair is there, or you're gonna fall on your rear when you try to sit down.
Originally posted by Stunaep
Say you're married. You do all the things a married man is supposed to do. You don't cheat on her, you don't mock her in public or private, you generally love and protect her. Do you go to her every night, and say, "dear wife, today I protected you, I didn't cheat on you, I said only good things about you."
No you don't. Neither does she. And yet (in an ideal marriage, and these things do exist), you're faithful to one another.
You forget or overlook the fact that your not cheating on her is her faith in you being proven. You don't need to state that that was the case for that faith to be worked out in actuality.
-
There was a scientific theory on the parting of the Red Sea, based on a combination of freak currents and the use of a low level reef to actually walk across. Of course, as the scientist said, it didn't mean it wasn't a miracle - the miracle would be in the timing of it.
Just an aside.
Oh, and Sarnie - doesn't Judaism (and the Old Testament) also then directly contradict Christianity by saying God's son has not yet been born? Thus that would mean the Jewish and Christian Gods are different?
Oh, aside no 2 - IIRC Sikhism regards Jesus as a prophet, rather than specifically as the son of God. Might be relevant, that.
-
IIRC, Islam also regards Jesus as a prophet - just not the son of God, as being an entity of pure thought/energy/whatever He's in no position to get a human woman up the duff.
OK, one quick question about the whole Flood dealy - when does the Bible suppose it took place? Whenever the Chruch wants to say it occoured, I will put money on there having been other human settlements elsewhere in the world at that time.
Another quick question for Mr Sarnie: OK, so you got an impressive string of coincidences going there with the whole Israeli prohpecy thing. But Nostradamus came up with some pretty nifty predictions as well. Doesn't make him the second comming, does it?
-
I'm bowing out. Your faith cannot meat the rigor of my cynical enquiry, and my cynicism doesn't allow for your (or anyone else's) faith as proof. We're not getting through to each other.
You lot, have fun.
-
I'm the only one who voted for the Invisible Hand. I'm a bit surprised, but not too.
-
Quick question for the Christians here.
If God is omniscient and he knows the mind of every man, why the need for rituals and so forth. I mean, if you lead a good, honest, pious live, caring for and giving to others and all that, why does it matter if you physically step into a building every Sunday or if youhave pre-marital sex.
I mean, is not the intent of the law, His law, more important than the letter of it?
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
If you truly think so, then you do not understand the basic tenets of said faiths. Quick example: inscribed around the inside of the Dome of the Rock, one of Islam's holy shrines, is (in Arabic) "There is no God but Allah, and He has no son."
Direct and irreconcilable contradiction to Christianity. Anyone who thinks that the God of the Bible is the same as Allah is either misinformed, blind, or stupid - no offense to you, GW, since I trust you were misinformed. :)
Missed that line right there. Is that an actual quote from the Koran, or is it just written on the Dome of the Rock? Anyway, I was mainly working off the fact that both Christianity and Islam are both based on the basic teachings of Judaism, and basing my argument off of that.
If the belief that Allah does not have a son is actually from the Koran, and if they continue to believe in the concept of a Messiah from Judaism, who is their Messiah?
EDIT: NM, found the answer to my last question. Rather odd answer, too. This is exactly what I found from my quick search: "In likeness to the Christian Bible, the Koran describes Jesus as a virgin-born, miracle-working Messiah, and also identifies Him as “holy” or “faultless.” Unlike the Christian Bible, however, the Koran forbids worshiping Jesus as God. Muhammad taught that Jesus was no more than God’s messenger, and that God does not have a Son." Which, if I remember correctly, was basically the same viewpoint as a group of Christian heretics known as the Gnostics (other than the lack of a Son of God), who were present in the early Christian church of about the same time as the writing of the Koran. Interesting....
-
Originally posted by Grey Wolf 2009
Which, if I remember correctly, was basically the same viewpoint as a group of Christian heretics known as the Gnostics
My expertise with ancient language is a little hazy but 'gnostic' comes from the same stem as 'knowldge' and indeed 'wisdom', IIRC
-
Yeah, but the group of Christians I'm talking about were a bit wierd. They thought there were two Jesuses, one who was the one who's normally thought about, and another who was the one who was actually the Son of God and worked through the first. One of the old religious councils, maybe the Council of Nicea (not sure which), basically outlawed the entire sect.
-
Okay, I skipped a bit of this thread, so this might be irrelevant or repetitive.
It's rather frustrating to have people label Christians as intolerant of other people's beliefs. This is not true. They use 'tolerance' to mean 'acceptance'. 'Tolerance' means to not go around chopping people's heads off because they don't believe in what you believe, (cf Crusades, Inquisition, etc etc) Christians try to spread the Gospel because we believe that other people we suffer if we don't. The point of a religion is that it's true and right, not that it suits us or that it's convenient.
The other thing. Yeah, the Church has a pretty dodgy history. No one's denying it. But people assume that Christians are all the same people, and what's more, that they're super human. This is not true. Christians, in this world, are still sinful. Just like everyone else in the world. The only difference being that we believe that Jesus substituted our deaths for his, so that we won't be punished. So when people say that they don't believe in Christ because the Christians are so annoying or hypocritical, well, that's judging the belief by the believers. It's quite sad, really.
(oh yeah. Also, just because Christ died for us, does not mean we have the right to go and still be sinful. That's just- stupid. The reason we're still sinful is because we're weak and we're human.)
Anyway, that's my rant.
-
If the belief failed to make the believers any more enlightened than anyone less (or, in fact, a fair deal less, as may well be the case with monotheistic religions), that's a perfectly reasonable attitude to take.
-
no, its an intolerant attitude to take. people accuse Christians of being intolerant and then refuse to listen to Christianity. What's with that?
(this is not a direct accusation, i'm just being generally annoyed)
-
Originally posted by diamondgeezer
Another quick question for Mr Sarnie: OK, so you got an impressive string of coincidences going there with the whole Israeli prohpecy thing. But Nostradamus came up with some pretty nifty predictions as well. Doesn't make him the second comming, does it?
The difference between Nostradamus and the Bible with regard to predictions is specificity. I'd be greatly obliged if you went and found a copy of Nostradamus' predictions, and see how specific/vague they are. I'd be more than willing to do the same for the predictions that Sandwich is referring to. My understanding is that Nostradamus' predictions are all very vague, a bit like horoscopes, that could apply to a huge range of situations. Like: "tomorrow, you will meet challenges!" I wouldn't be much of a prophet if I told you that. :)
-
Um, I think basically everyone's "listened to Christianity" at some point. The bible's friggin' everywhere, at least in the US, to the point where you basically can't grow up without knowing most of its plot and premise; the radio's clogged with fat men preaching hate for the world based on Old Testament passages; the major cities all have religious-themed demonstrations fairly regularly (used to be one after every abortion clinic bombing, now they've slowed up)... it'd basically be impossible to ignore it every second of your life. Perhaps the problem is more that people listen to the messages Christianity these days has to say, and they don't like them. Like it or not, that's the faith in the modern era. I'd recommend doing something about it if you don't want things to stay that way, starting with shutting up the spiteful monsters or adding a voice that isn't totally insane to the general mass.
-
Oh yeah, I'll admit to that. I think there's hardly a single person here on HLP who doesn't possess a basic understanding of the gospel of Jesus Christ (if inaccurate in places, eg. Jesus' death was merely physical). Besides that, I like to think my voice isn't totally insane, especially within the perspective of the general mass.
But you know, you're absolutely right. There's a lot of noise out there, y'know? It's irritating sometimes, but it's the background for what I say nonetheless. Whatever impact happens, happens.
-
On the other hand, I don't hear you on the news, Steak. ;)
I'm perfectly aware that most Christians are absolutely sane. At least, most of the ones I know are. But there's not a shred of that sanity in the ones you hear giving speeces on TV or forming public policy, and that's where it matters.
-
Basically my opinion of those not too sane Christians that Stryke was taking about:
Stop using Jesus as an excuse for being a narrow-minded, bigoted asshole.
-
i said i was resigning but this thread killed all my braincells that are used for judgment.
people who take religon too seriously can easily become dangerous. suicide cults and terrorists to name a couple. i personally think that people in general require some sort of universal abstraction layer to simplify an otherwise complex environment. once the human brain starts soking up information it pretty much records everything you sense and do. eventually there is so much information up there that it becomes overwealming and difficult to sort out. religon (and the same can be said for science) provides a way for simplification of that information, so that it can be better applied to survival (life's main purpose). once mere survival becomes tediously boring a person begins to broden their perspectives and begins to contemplate their existance. the concept of god or some other idea may be picked up on. whatever idea one picks up as their means of abstracting reality doesnt matter, what matters is that it streamlines your thoughts and gives you a fixed perspective to essintially live by. withought a fixed perspective one would easily get confused by the world to the point where they would not be able to achieve lifes primary goal, survival. this not only explains the existance of religon but its success as well.
people who are too religous tend to never vary their perspective and thus creates conflict. it could be a simple dislike of people who dont think like you or running your 747 into the white house.
-
I just got back from SUNDAY CHURCH (*gasp*!!!), as well as hanging out with my friends afterwards downtown. WHile we were sitting outside eating schawarma on Ben Yehuda (open-air pedestrian mall), this group of people - maybe 4 to 6, I didn't count - walks down the street. One of them had a big wooden cross on his shoulder (complete with a pair of wheels on the end for easy transportation).
They weren't making a fuss or anything, just walking along slowly, stopping to talk with whoever came up to them, etc. But seeing that big wooden cross blatantly paraded around the center of Jerusalem, I couldn't help but think how offensive those people were being to the Jews around them. Heck, I was offended - not by the cross, but by the insensitivity of those people.
We have more than our share of religious whackos in Jerusalem - it's even been diagnosed as a medical phenomenon: Jerusalem Syndrome. But I didn't get any impression of these people that they were "whacko". They seemd to be perfectly sane (well, as sane as someone carrying a 12-foot wooden cross around Jerusalem can be) people, who were just insensitive as heck.
Thankfully, Jerusalem's multitudes are relatively accustomed to such unusual events, and didn't appear to react too adversely. But still.... :rolleyes:
:sigh:
-
Originally posted by Nuke
people who are too religous tend to never vary their perspective and thus creates conflict. it could be a simple dislike of people who dont think like you or running your 747 into the white house.
This applies to any ideology, of course. Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia, for example. It's a very human trait, sad to say.
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
Heck, I was offended - not by the cross, but by the insensitivity of those people.
Interesting. If I saw someone doing that in America, I'd be impressed by their openness (although the convenient wheels might lower my opinion a bit ;)). I guess it would be different in Jewish culture -- so many centuries of persecution and prejudice creating barriers. :sigh:
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
stuff
Isn't Jerusalem also a christian 'holy location'? And if so, what's wrong with walking about with a 12-foot cross?
Other than the tackyness of it all.
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
I just got back from SUNDAY CHURCH (*gasp*!!!), as well as hanging out with my friends afterwards downtown. WHile we were sitting outside eating schawarma on Ben Yehuda (open-air pedestrian mall), this group of people - maybe 4 to 6, I didn't count - walks down the street. One of them had a big wooden cross on his shoulder (complete with a pair of wheels on the end for easy transportation).
You should have knocked the wheels off and nailed him to it. Lets see how commited he is to this Jesus impression :D
-
i saw such a spectical at a metallica concert awhilt back. they had an 8 foor cross (us americans are lazy) it the parking lot and after a night of moshing and that death rage that accompanies heavy metal concerts. it made me want to rally all the satanic freaks to do something about it. i didnt pay money to get harrassed in the parking lot by some psyco religous cult. the fact that they consider the metal subculture evil really pissed me off. last i recall, james hetfield is a devout christian.
-
Yeah, the wheels bit is just... weak, man.
I personally dig those guys down in Mexico who occasionally get the mood and actually do nail themselves up.
-
Nailing one's self to a cross is impressive. I'd have to ask a mate to do the actual nailing for me, as I'm a wuss
-
I think they must have someone else do the nailing. After all, how would you do the last arm?
-
Blu-tac?
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Aetheist. Although i don't discount the existnece of a higher power, i just don;t think it matters - surely how you live your life is more important than how you pray? And after all, some of the worst atrocities in history were committed in the name of religion.....
According to christianity, you don't have to be a beliver to go to heaven...You just have to be a good guy.
"For anyone who does good, is beloved by God!"
-
Nope. Virtuous nonbelievers go to Limbo for Catholics, Hell for most Protestants. Unless you're in some kind of libby pinko ultratolerant heretical wing of "christianity". Baptism is a prerequisite for Heaven, and if you were baptized and still don't think Jesus was the son of God... ooooh, God does not like you.
-
Trash, read my earlier post (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,21052.msg417980.html#msg417980)
Hey look, someone voted for Allah
-
i hope he didnt take ofense to my ak47 crack.
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
According to christianity, you don't have to be a beliver to go to heaven...You just have to be a good guy.
"For anyone who does good, is beloved by God!"
Erm.. no. Besides that being the opposite of what Christianity is about (at least, in the churches I've been to) it sort of defeats the whole purpose of Jesus.
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
Baptism is a prerequisite for Heaven
'Tis not. Look at the thief on the cross - all he did was ask to be remembered (not even ask to be saved) and Jesus told him he was going to paradise. :nod:
-
Too bad the other one was a prick.
-
When reading the Bible, remember to take it all with a grain of salt. Most of the New Testament was probably not written until at least the late first century, if not the second or early third. If you need a source for contradictions to appear, it's right there. And if you want another reason for thinking intelligently about the Bible, remember that the specific books present were chosen by the Bishops at the Council of Nicea to support their views.
-
Originally posted by Grey Wolf 2009
When reading the Bible, remember to take it all with a grain of salt. Most of the New Testament was probably not written until at least the late first century, if not the second or early third. If you need a source for contradictions to appear, it's right there. And if you want another reason for thinking intelligently about the Bible, remember that the specific books present were chosen by the Bishops at the Council of Nicea to support their views.
Not to discredit you also GW, but I would suggest to everyone thinking seriously about this to take those assertions right there with a grain of salt too. :yes:
-
Setekh: actually his information is 100% correct and is verifiable by experts on the papryses that contain the oldest known coppies of the bibles
the suppoedly oldest the "Magdalene Manuscript" is of dubious dating - the first non-dubiously dated one is roughly in the third century CE (common era)
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
Baptism is a prerequisite for Heaven
Originally posted by Goober5000
'Tis not. Look at the thief on the cross - all he did was ask to be remembered (not even ask to be saved) and Jesus told him he was going to paradise. :nod:
Ok, this point is obviously disputed, but just take it with a grain of salt that I also heard that baptism is a pre-requisite for getting into heaven. If so, then I guess I'm going to hell no matter what because my dad told my mom when my sister and I were born that he did not want to get us baptised; he thought my sister and I should be able to choose our own religion(s) when we were old enough to decide for ourselves.
Considering that my sister and I have been agnostics all our lives, and I became a full-blown atheist after Mom died, Dad showed tremendous foresight, no? :D
I don't care about heaven because no one has offered me any proof that it exists, so I'll live my life in this world as best I can, where I know I can do some good.
And if God (if he even exists) sends me to hell for not worshipping him, despite the fact that I'm still a good guy, I'll gladly help the Big D storm heaven again and overthrow God The Tyrant. Even the Devil needs an advocate. What else are lawyers for, anyway? ;7 :drevil: :thepimp: :cool: :D :devil:
-
Originally posted by Grey Wolf 2009
When reading the Bible, remember to take it all with a grain of salt. Most of the New Testament was probably not written until at least the late first century, if not the second or early third. If you need a source for contradictions to appear, it's right there. And if you want another reason for thinking intelligently about the Bible, remember that the specific books present were chosen by the Bishops at the Council of Nicea to support their views.
True, many concepts such as the trinity were disputed until the Council of Nicea declared them to be the one and only way to interpret the then-created canon.
What I do find ironic though is how close the book of Revelations, a cornerstone of the Calvinist philosiphy that dominates most of the fundamentalist Christian groups was very close to not being in the canon.
Of course, a former girlfriend of mine stated that the council was influenced by the holy spirit, but I am thoroughly convinced that the actual fundamentals of Christianity were perverted beyond recognition by the politics of men at that time if it truly was directly from or inspired by God.
Of course, if it is really all God's will, he's clearly into social Darwinism ;)
-
Originally posted by Kazan
Setekh: actually his information is 100% correct and is verifiable by experts on the papryses that contain the oldest known coppies of the bibles
Kazan, the assertion of GW's is that the Bible's words ought to be taken with a grain of salt, because they are stained by humanity's touch upon them in the writing and selection process. However, the assertion itself is historiographically only one of many possible explanations. It too must be taken with a grain of salt.
Ace, I think it's useful to realise that if those words really were inspired by God, and God is not some sort of fairy who is unable to keep his communication with us as accurate as he wants it to be, then what he wants to communicate to us will get to us despite human plans to intervene.
Btw, it's called 'Revelation'. ;)
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
Nope. Virtuous nonbelievers go to Limbo for Catholics, Hell for most Protestants. Unless you're in some kind of libby pinko ultratolerant heretical wing of "christianity". Baptism is a prerequisite for Heaven, and if you were baptized and still don't think Jesus was the son of God... ooooh, God does not like you.
I have no ideain which churches you went to, but if you think that, you have a very rigid and false view of Christianity.
If you're a good guy, you go to heaven!
(Even if you belive in that Limbo stuff, since once you get in the limbo and see that there IS a GOD you WILL belive and that's your ticket to Heaven...)
The whole point of Christianity IS about beeing good in the heart...doing good things..NOT praying, bowing and praising God in a SINGLE, SPECIFIC WAY!
When you think about it, God and Alah are one and the same.
Different people in different parts of the world have spread his belief in different ways...
Every religion starts by beeing passed on verbally (fom generation to generation). And liek a fisher's tale as it pases from one man to another, therea re specific changes compared to the original (based upon the persons).. Yu don't really belive that EVERY SINGLE WORD in the Bible/Kuran are exact to the letter..
Hundereds of years of circulating tends to change the "story" a lot....
That's why I don't take the Old testament too seriously...
The New Testament was written down allmost imidiately (and largely by the apostols and their direct followers), so I put my faith in that part...
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
The whole point of Christianity IS about beeing good in the heart...doing good things..NOT praying, bowing and praising God in a SINGLE, SPECIFIC WAY!
You're half-right, but I still dispute that. Christianity is about Christ, and how his life, death and resurrection opened the way to eternal life which we cannot earn ourselves. No paraphrase, however well-intentioned, ought to replace that.
-
Originally posted by Nuke
science is a process by which people aquire knoledge. any question andwered by science has been answered by people. i find your statement redudndent. its hard to define science as a god.
It's hard to define 'god' if you dont believe in god(s). I basically mean that science is where I put my trust, and where my beliefs come from.
-
Well, when someone people say "science is their god", they often mean that scientific enquiry (inquiry? I always forget which is which) is the ultimate authority that they trust in. This stands separate to believing in a personal entity who is the ultimate authority that they trust in.
-
Trashman: Try the Catholic church. The Limbo bit's right there in the catechism, and most of the major Protestant churches say you just go straight to Hell. Like I said, if you're Unitarian or something then I don't know the deal, but then they're barely Christians in the first place.
And once you go to Limbo, you stay there. There is no afterlife transfer department, unless you wind up in Purgatory you're stuck wherever they put you for all eternity. End of story. For Zoroaster's sake, man, you can't just change the faith to fit your personal bloody perception of what it should be, there's thousands of years behind this stuff and it's not all just gonna make way for your bleeding-heart sentiments. Don't like it, find another religion. Religion is a set of rules and a universal philosophy, not Hollywood's latest feel-good story.
Beat: Then you're abusing the very concept of "science". The whole point of scientific thought is to try and figure out the universe by observation, not just put blind faith in what some guy in a clerical collar or labcoat tells you the Universe is like. I don't think you'll find any scientists who appreciate your deification of their work. I sure don't, it lends credence to those assholes who want to pretend that quantifiable fact is debatable because they think everybody's a blind-faith zealot like them.
-
Originally posted by Setekh
words really were inspired by God, and God
you know what people these days who say "god told me to say/do this" are called? insane
-
Originally posted by beatspete
It's hard to define 'god' if you dont believe in god(s). I basically mean that science is where I put my trust, and where my beliefs come from.
actually it's really easy to define god if you don't believe in god(s)'
let's use American Heritage
god ( P ) Pronunciation Key (gd)
n.
1. God
1. A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.
2. The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being.
2. A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality.
3. An image of a supernatural being; an idol.
4. One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed: Money was their god.
5. A very handsome man.
6. A powerful ruler or despot.
You get your belief in god out of science? Two Words, one contradction: Bull****
Show me a single logically valid syllogism that support your proposition that god exists. No you may not defer to another person because nobody and I mean NOBODY can make a logically valid syylogism to support that proposition.
I know a person with two PhD's ni the field of religious studies who tried to make an argument supporting that syllogism - he made twnety five logical fallacies and I called him on it
-
Originally posted by Kazan
You get your belief in god out of science? Two Words, one contradction: Bull****
Show me a single logically valid syllogism that support your proposition that god exists. No you may not defer to another person because nobody and I mean NOBODY can make a logically valid syylogism to support that proposition.
I know a person with two PhD's ni the field of religious studies who tried to make an argument supporting that syllogism - he made twnety five logical fallacies and I called him on it
How about this as a beginning;
"God invented the world, and all in it. Science is a way of understanding Gods creation."
It's perfectly valid - I'm sure there are plenty of scientists out there whose beliefs have been reinforced by the complexity of what they study.... IIRC, based on random chance alone, it would have taken several billion years for the first single celled organisms to develop on Earth - i.e. so we should logically be still part of the primodvial soup. Or other stuff which is equally inexplicable by current logic*
Now, I'm not arguing either pro or anti-religion here - I've already stated my views on this whole thing - i'm just trying to make the point that there is more than one way in which a person may choose thier beliefs.
As for the proof of Gods' existence, well that's a matter of belief and how you view the world around you. There is no way to prove or disprove the existence of a higher being, though.
*NB: whilst it's obvious that science has yet to (even begin to) answer every question - I've used that reason as counter to why so many 'zealot-ish' religious people just ignore it - it doesn't necessarily entail that it can answer all the questions.
-
"based on random chance alone, it would have taken several billion years for the first single celled organisms to develop on Earth"
earth is sevral billion years old, most complex life has only been around for 500 million years,
and who said random chance allone, it was evolution
evolution != random chance
-
Originally posted by Setekh
Kazan, the assertion of GW's is that the Bible's words ought to be taken with a grain of salt, because they are stained by humanity's touch upon them in the writing and selection process. However, the assertion itself is historiographically only one of many possible explanations. It too must be taken with a grain of salt.
Ace, I think it's useful to realise that if those words really were inspired by God, and God is not some sort of fairy who is unable to keep his communication with us as accurate as he wants it to be, then what he wants to communicate to us will get to us despite human plans to intervene.
Btw, it's called 'Revelation'. ;)
Then what is your opinion, Setekh, on things such as the Catholic belief in purgatory, or the Calvinist belief in predetermination? Or the rejected apocryphal books, such as the Apocalypse of Peter? If you are certain that the leaders of the Church were divinely guided when choosing the books of the Bible at the Council of Nicea, were they also divinely guided when developing the concepts of predetermination and purgatory? And if the writers of the accepted Gospels were divinely guided, who guided the writers of the rejected books?
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
"based on random chance alone, it would have taken several billion years for the first single celled organisms to develop on Earth"
earth is sevral billion years old, most complex life has only been around for 500 million years,
and who said random chance allone, it was evolution
evolution != random chance
I'll dig out the figure if i can find it (IIRC it was more than 2 bn, and probbably something like 6+).... but the appearance of life on Earth was definately far, far, sooner that would have been expected.
although I think there are holes in evolutionary theory that are still being explored - such as how & why random mutations occur, and what environmental pressures 'naturally select' a particular mutation as being beneficial, and soforth.
And evolution was not responsible for the creation of the first life. To clarify, I'm referring to what is the first formation of DNA molecules and soforth from the base, um, stuff that was floating around at the time - i.e. the first 'spark' of life.
I'm not saying this was necessarilly the 'hand of god' at work or anything, just that some people may see it as evidence of a higher power. Likewise, it could just be an unknown factor. It's just something I'm pointing out about how much we have yet to understand, and how people can view that.
-
Well, if space is infinitely big, then there is infinite room, therefore almost anything has somewhere to happen.
Possibly all of the above are true ;)
-
if you head off in one direction long enough, acording to the laws of probability, you will find a planet identical to earth as you left it.
:D
it's true
"how & why random mutations occur" there are many ways wich this has been found, from radiation to simple errors in the DNA spliceing proces when to organisms mate.
"what environmental pressures 'naturally select' a particular mutation as being beneficial" all of them, if you do better than your siblings or especaly competitors you are naturaly selected (doing better can be somewhat circularly defind as haveing children who do better)
if a simple easily created by chance molocule happens to be able to replicate it'self, there you have evolution. something of the complexity of a single sugar molocule is all that is needed to get it started.
-
I thought that they thought the first organic molecules were amino acids, not sugars.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
if you head off in one direction long enough, acording to the laws of probability, you will find a planet identical to earth as you left it.
:D
it's true
"how & why random mutations occur" there are many ways wich this has been found, from radiation to simple errors in the DNA spliceing proces when to organisms mate.
"what environmental pressures 'naturally select' a particular mutation as being beneficial" all of them, if you do better than your siblings or especaly competitors you are naturaly selected (doing better can be somewhat circularly defind as haveing children who do better)
Yes, but what does 'do better' actually mean? And how can some animals remain at the top of their food chain for so long without being challenged, like sharks? Why aren't all evoluuntionary niches filled? How do interdependiencies (like between plants and pollen-carrying insects) develop? How does behaviour evolve? (humans being the best example - because we're basically helpless at birth, a family group is required not only to survive, but also to educate). That sort of stuff......
.I'm not an evolutionary biologist, so I'm not even going to try and put together some mindblowing argumeent or whatnot (i.e. I'm too bloody lazy and tired to look it up on google ;) ), but it's been my understanding that there are many aspects behind the theory of natural selection that have still to be fully determined.
-
aldo_14: you're 'Earlier than expected" statement is bullocks - the atmosphere of early earth consisted of a set of gasses than when a powerful spark (such as LIGHTNING) was introduced to it would spontaenously generate so-called "organic molecules" this process is called abiogenesis and is the single largest "obstical" for life to get going - and in early earth it wasn't an obtical at all infact the atmosphere favored it. The presence of life then altered the amtosphere and some of the lighter gases were also shed off.
the arguement that the universe is inherently "Complex" is based off a erronious understanding of the laws of thermodynamics - every structure in the universe is easily obtainable by simple processes of natural forces.
I'm sure you'd say an "orbit" is complex - it's just the combination of inert and gravitation.
I'm sure you'd say a "Galaxy" is complex - it's just a whole set of orbits - everyhting in it can be broen down into results of inerta and gravitation (stars have fusion because of gravitation pulling them on themselves, etc)
-
do better, haveing more childeren who have more childeren, who have more childeren ... who have more childeren, than a competitor, if for some reason down the line all you progeny get wiped out then you lose.
sharks have a design that has yet to be improved upon, if there was a better one then there would probly be no sharks any more.
what is a nich you think should be filled that isn't (there is no law sayin gthat they have to be filled, just wonderig what you are talking aobut)
interdependencies and behaviour develop just like any other evolutionary feature
-
Originally posted by Kazan
aldo_14: you're 'Earlier than expected" statement is bullocks - the atmosphere of early earth consisted of a set of gasses than when a powerful spark (such as LIGHTNING) was introduced to it would spontaenously generate so-called "organic molecules" this process is called abiogenesis and is the single largest "obstacle" for life to get going - and in early earth it wasn't an obtical at all infact the atmosphere favored it. The presence of life then altered the amtosphere and some of the lighter gases were also shed off.
I'm prepared to be proven wrong... it was only a half remembered example after all.
Although a quick google check shows that ( http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/Exobiology/miller.html ) there is still an ongoing debate over the whole thing (I believe this is what you mean)... honestly, i can't be arsed arguing over it. and there is appraently some issue regarding organic compounds - to - cells, and exactly what the atmospheric conditions were on earth, and soforth.
But my point was about the fact that the universe is a very, very, complex and intricate thing., and how people may interpret that as being for, or against a certain belief system.
-
aldo: interesting site there - but that still doesn't refute abiogenesis it infact supports it - and it doesn't refute the experiement - it just says that it may not have been the only biological source on earth
second: you ignored half of my post - you keep asserting the the universe is "very, very, complex and intericate" but you do not A) support that assertion of B) assuming A you must prove A cannot arise out of natural forces
A is more semantic than anything else - B is the important proposition - PROVE that "Complexity" cannot be caused by the INTERACTION OF NATURAL FORCES
you know what i think about you avoiding that? I know you know you cannot support that proposition because you know you're full of it - you know why I say this? because proposition B is unsupportable
-
Originally posted by Kazan
aldo: interesting site there - but that still doesn't refute abiogenesis it infact supports it - and it doesn't refute the experiement - it just says that it may not have been the only biological source on earth
second: you ignored half of my post - you keep asserting the the universe is "very, very, complex and intericate" but you do not A) support that assertion of B) assuming A you must prove A cannot arise out of natural forces
A is more semantic than anything else - B is the important proposition - PROVE that "Complexity" cannot be caused by the INTERACTION OF NATURAL FORCES
you know what i think about you avoiding that? I know you know you cannot support that proposition because you know you're full of it - you know why I say this? because proposition B is unsupportable
I think you missed my point - I never made, nor intended to make, an argument for creationism. I was making an argument for belief in it.
Now, I am not a devout person or whatnot. But it's pretty obvious that B) in particualr is a pointless statement. Because there's no way to define natural forces in a completely neutral way.
What I mean, is that you can say it's down to themodynamics, and then someone religious can hit back with 'well, thermodynamics were created by God'.... and there's no real way to logically contest it (because the existence of God can neither be proven or disproven - or at least, not by anyone still alive ;)).
So ,you see that B) is supportable if your belief structure allows it. yours doesn't, but it doesn;t mean that someone else doesn't. And it doesn't prevent them wanting to explore it, either.
And the problem is that you seem unable to grasp that side of it (the whole essence of faith)- you seem to show unmitigated contempt for anyone who has religious beliefs, which is just daft, really. And I think that you're so set in that mindset, that you'll porobably miss my point in this post too.
Because you don;t seem to want to accept the possibility that science is not the antithesis of religion.
C'est la vie.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
I'll dig out the figure if i can find it (IIRC it was more than 2 bn, and probbably something like 6+).... but the appearance of life on Earth was definately far, far, sooner that would have been expected.
Based on the model that the article you read was using. The problem isn't that the scientists can't figure out a way that life on Earth got started. There are several therories. The problem is picking which one happened not which one is more plausable.
The thing that most people forget is that Replicator - the first self replacating molecule (which almost certainly wasn't DNA!) only needed to appear once. In all the reactions that occured on the primordial Earth for 4 billion years only one needed to give rise to a self replicating molecule.
Originally posted by aldo_14
although I think there are holes in evolutionary theory that are still being explored - such as how & why random mutations occur, and what environmental pressures 'naturally select' a particular mutation as being beneficial, and soforth.
Only the minor details of natural selection are being studied now. The basic theory is simple enough and well understood enough that even though I've only read "The Selfish Gene" & "The Blind Watchmaker" I can understand it. (Both books are by Richard Dawkins and I HIGHLY reccomend them to anyone who wants to be able to talk about evolution without talking through their hat).
Originally posted by aldo_14
And evolution was not responsible for the creation of the first life. To clarify, I'm referring to what is the first formation of DNA molecules and soforth from the base, um, stuff that was floating around at the time - i.e. the first 'spark' of life.
I'm not saying this was necessarilly the 'hand of god' at work or anything, just that some people may see it as evidence of a higher power. Likewise, it could just be an unknown factor. It's just something I'm pointing out about how much we have yet to understand, and how people can view that.
As I said there are several theories which explain how life got started. We may never know which one is correct as all of them are plausable. It's like looking at a murder committed 1000 years ago and trying to figure out who did it. You can eliminate some suspects but you can never say who did it for certain. You don't however need to ascribe a supernatural explaination for it.
Originally posted by aldo_14
Because you don;t seem to want to accept the possibility that science is not the antithesis of religion.
Sorry Aldo but it is. Science says nothing can be true unless we prove it. Religion says this is true but can't even prove that God exists let alone anything else.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
You don't however need to ascribe a supernatural explaination for it.
I was only saying that you could. that's all. Didn't say that i did, just that some people might and it's perfectly understandable.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
I was only saying that you could. that's all. Didn't say that i did, just that some people might and it's perfectly understandable.
You could. But there is no need. You could also say that the murder was committed by a giant tapdancing mongoose but why say that unless you've got even some slight proof?
-
Originally posted by karajorma
You could. But there is no need. You could also say that the murder was committed by a giant tapdancing mongoose but why say that unless you've got even some slight proof?
Just tryin' to generate some mutual understanding/respect, that's all.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
I think you missed my point - I never made, nor intended to make, an argument for creationism. I was making an argument for belief in it.
:wtf:
unless the dictionary has been suddenly changed in the last 30 seconds making an argument for the belief in something is same as making the argument for something - exactly the same.
Stop dodging the challenge, even if you cannot beat it and know it :rolleyes:
Originally posted by aldo_14
Now, I am not a devout person or whatnot. But it's pretty obvious that B) in particualr is a pointless statement. Because there's no way to define natural forces in a completely neutral way.
bull**** - a natural force is effect due to non-biological processes (which is a very rough definition.. a physics professor could give you a better definition)
it's not difficult to define them nuetrally - it's not abritrary - stop running from the challenge
Originally posted by aldo_14
What I mean, is that you can say it's down to themodynamics, and then someone religious can hit back with 'well, thermodynamics were created by God'....
that's not a logically valid argument and you know it
Originally posted by aldo_14
and there's no real way to logically contest it (because the existence of God can neither be proven or disproven - or at least, not by anyone still alive ;)).
this statement is half true - yes we cannot PROVE their is a god, yes we cannot DISPROVE it
You however cannot even SUPPORT the existance of one - is it is illogical and irrational to believe in one. If you cannot logically support something then safe and logical position is to not believe in it. This makes faith patently a fallacy.
Originally posted by aldo_14
So ,you see that B) is supportable if your belief structure allows it. yours doesn't, but it doesn;t mean that someone else doesn't. And it doesn't prevent them wanting to explore it, either.
"belief structure" - I don't havge a belief structure, stop trying to project your ideas and violations of logic onto me
Originally posted by aldo_14
And the problem is that you seem unable to grasp that side of it (the whole essence of faith)-
I grok the essence of faith beyond your aprehnsion - Neurotheosis, find out waht is is
Originally posted by aldo_14
you seem to show unmitigated contempt for anyone who has religious beliefs
fanatical adherance to the illogical and unsupporable is by definition insane and thus i do hold contempt for them
I am contemptious of any person who tosses themselves into lies instead of facing the unromantic/unexciting/non-emotionally appealing truth
I am contemptious of anyone who scoffs at things that have undeniable evidence because it conflicts with that which they only have faith in.
Originally posted by aldo_14
, which is just daft, really
so now you're calling me names
Originally posted by aldo_14
. And I think that you're so set in that mindset, that you'll porobably miss my point in this post too.
and trying to insult my intelligence
Originally posted by aldo_14
Because you don;t seem to want to accept the possibility that science is not the antithesis of religion.
actually if scientific evidence came up supporting religion and it was independantly verifiable i would support that position, but because of it being supported by science it is no longer a religious view by definition
re·li·gion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-ljn)
n.
1.
A. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
This is because it's no longer "Supernatural" - anything that exist is natural
Originally posted by aldo_14
C'est la vie.
Ainsi vous réclamez
Wegen dich
-
Originally posted by Kazan
:wtf:
unless the dictionary has been suddenly changed in the last 30 seconds making an argument for the belief in something is same as making the argument for something - exactly the same.
Stop dodging the challenge, even if you cannot beat it and know it :rolleyes:
no, it isn't. i'm making an argument towards understanding that belief & the reasons for it, not the validity of that belief. Frankly, i dbout i can make this any more blatant.
The whole point of this is to encourage a bit of polite respect and consideration. You seem to be the one objecting to it.
Originally posted by Kazan
bull**** - a natural force is effect due to non-biological processes (which is a very rough definition.. a physics professor could give you a better definition)
it's not difficult to define them nuetrally - it's not abritrary - stop running from the challenge
Actually, I think you'll find that it is impossible to define the root cause of a natural force without finding some conflict as to it.
Originally posted by Kazan
this statement is half true - yes we cannot PROVE their is a god, yes we cannot DISPROVE it
You however cannot even SUPPORT the existance of one - is it is illogical and irrational to believe in one. If you cannot logically support something then safe and logical position is to not believe in it. This makes faith patently a fallacy.
The whole point of faith is that it does need proof. Besides which, what would qualify as proof?
Originally posted by Kazan
"belief structure" - I don't havge a belief structure, stop trying to project your ideas and violations of logic onto me
I grok the essence of faith beyond your aprehnsion - Neurotheosis, find out waht is is
you have a clearly defined set of beliefs. You've been very open with them when showing contempt for others beliefs. you're belief is that there is no God, and that science holds all the answers to human existence. i make no criticism of that, it's very close to what I believe (although I don't outright reject the possbility of a higher power)
Originally posted by Kazan
fanatical adherance to the illogical and unsupporable is by definition insane and thus i do hold contempt for them
I am contemptious of any person who tosses themselves into lies instead of facing the unromantic/unexciting/non-emotionally appealing truth
I am contemptious of anyone who scoffs at things that have undeniable evidence because it conflicts with that which they only have faith in.
I'm not sure what you mean by that, and I'm not sure what it has to do with what i said.
i am, however, saddened by the fairly reprehensible fact that you are so quick to hold contempt for people because you disagree with them or their beliefs. It's also interesting in that you take issue with me for defiending their right to have that belief.
Originally posted by Kazan
so now you're calling me names
and trying to insult my intelligence
No, you're being sensitive and insecure. If I wanted to call you names, I'd be far more blatant and call you something like an "arrogant, egotistical prick". But that would be very rude, so i won't.
Originally posted by Kazan
actually if scientific evidence came up supporting religion and it was independantly verifiable i would support that position, but because of it being supported by science it is no longer a religious view by definition
re·li·gion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-ljn)
n.
1.
A. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
[/B]
Why the definition? What is your argument here? That you believe in science alone? We've established that already.
Originally posted by Kazan
This is because it's no longer "Supernatural" - anything that exist is natural
your definition of 'natural' may vary widely from that of a religious person. You - or my - consideration of supernatural may be viewed as part of Gods actions by that person.
-
Originally posted by Kazan
You however cannot even SUPPORT the existance of one - is it is illogical and irrational to believe in one. If you cannot logically support something then safe and logical position is to not believe in it. This makes faith patently a fallacy.
Whoah, whoah, whoah... hold on a minute.
I hope you realise the full consequences of what you're saying here. You do realise that, if you hold this to be true, then you cannot ever state that anything is 'true', or 'real', or anything like that at all - EVER. Because, you know, there is no support, logical or otherwise, for the idea that this world is real, or even if there is anything *to* be real in the first place. At all. You cannot believe you exist, or I exist, or anything like that - anything. Name it, you can't prove it exists.
Just checking you know what you're saying here.
-
Wow, aldo, you should be an apologist. I'm impressed. :)
Kazan, you are coming across as incredibly closed-minded. Why not at least respect the faith of others, even if you don't share it?
-
Originally posted by Goober5000
Wow, aldo, you should be an apologist. I'm impressed. :)
Apologist? Not sure I get your meaning there....
I'm just trying to be fair to people - even if you disagree fundamentally with someones views, you're never going resolve anything without at least trying to understand them (or at least the motivations).
-
*smacks self* Yes, a definition would be helpful. :lol:
apologist - one who practices apologetics
apologetics (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=apologetics)
1. The branch of theology that is concerned with defending or proving the truth of Christian doctrines.
2. Formal argumentation in defense of something, such as a position or system.
-
Think I'll take no 2/ ;)
-
Blaise: in correct
Aldo: i didn't realize you were arguing that they should have the _RIGHT_ to hold that view, they do have the right. However that right doesn't mean that opinion has to be respected if it's reprehensible such as the mass of illogic that is religion
as for the definition read closely
and you may accuse me of not understanding them - but you'd be suprised exactly how well i DO understand them and understand their drives and that is why i find them reprehensible
-
Originally posted by Kazan
Aldo: i didn't realize you were arguing that they should have the _RIGHT_ to hold that view, they do have the right. However that right doesn't mean that opinion has to be respected if it's reprehensible such as the mass of illogic that is religion
as for the definition read closely
and you may accuse me of not understanding them - but you'd be suprised exactly how well i DO understand them and understand their drives and that is why i find them reprehensible
Then i'm worried for you.
I would have thought understanding would have helped you in this.
-
aldo understanding exactly how weak of mind and character someone is doesn't generally foster love for them
althought I cannot wholly lay the blame on the individual - it is largely the society that they are brought up in that values thousands of pleasant lies over the truth that is really to blame so perhaps i should cut the individual a wee bit more slack
then there is the whole neurotheosis thing
-
Originally posted by Kazan
aldo understanding exactly how weak of mind and character someone is doesn't generally foster love for them
althought I cannot wholly lay the blame on the individual - it is largely the society that they are brought up in that values thousands of pleasant lies over the truth that is really to blame so perhaps i should cut the individual a wee bit more slack
then there is the whole neurotheosis thing
I would say that it takes a hell of a lot of mental strength to believe devoutly in something, regardless of other peoples bigoted or sectarian attitudes towards them.
Certainly never hurt Albert Einstein (for example), depite being a German Jew in the 1930s.
-
actually it doesn't take a lot of mental strength to defend that aldo - because of neurotheosis - religion is neurochemically addictive
[it gives you pleasant feelings, which are releases of positive neurotransmitters - we are by the workings of our addicted to said neurotransmitters]
before you try and judge my considering their opinion reprehensible and trying to call me a bigot and a sectarian you should perhaps find out if there is a scientific basis behind my opinion..
infact you should ASSUME that there is a scientific basis behind my opinion - because otherwise it wouldn't be my opinion!
Originally posted by aldo_14
Certainly never hurt Albert Einstein (for example),
just so you know this is a fallacious argumentum ad verecundiam
-
Originally posted by Kazan
actually it doesn't take a lot of mental strength to defend that aldo - because of neurotheosis - religion is neurochemically addictive
[it gives you pleasant feelings, which are releases of positive neurotransmitters - we are by the workings of our addicted to said neurotransmitters]
before you try and judge my considering their opinion reprehensible and trying to call me a bigot and a sectarian you should perhaps find out if there is a scientific basis behind my opinion..
infact you should ASSUME that there is a scientific basis behind my opinion - because otherwise it wouldn't be my opinion!
just so you know this is a fallacious argumentum ad verecundiam
i'll have to take your word on neurotheosis , because I haven;t been able to find a link on it.
As for you being bigoted.....
big·ot ( P ) Pronunciation Key (bgt)
n.
One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
I would say the description suits you to a t
-
there is a difference between finding someone's opinions reprehensible and being intolerant of them - i do not try and prevent them from going to church, i do not try and prevent them from practicing their religion in their home. I do not try and prevent them from corrupting their children with their religion.
I however do find them reprehensible.
-
Originally posted by Kazan
there is a difference between finding someone's opinions reprehensible and being intolerant of them - i do not try and prevent them from going to church, i do not try and prevent them from practicing their religion in their home. I do not try and prevent them from corrupting their children with their religion.
I however do find them reprehensible.
I think you just reinfoced my point. You can't tolerate anyone having a different view from you. yopu tried to make sort of balanced reply and still accused anyone with religious beliefs of 'corrupting' their children.
You do believe in some form of higher, infallible and all ruling power, I think. Yourself.
-
aldo: you are completely and totally off base and now you are just down to argumentum ad hominem
i tolerate different opinions constantly - WHEN THEY MAKE SENSE, when they are logical, plausable, etc
tolerating ignorance, irrationalism, illogical, etc is something nobody should have to do - but i tolerate it in that they can go ahead and do anything in their personal life that they want, be it being completely convinced that science if complete and utter bull**** and that "God is going to save" them.
However - i draw the line at RESPECTING unreasonable beliefs, expecting me to respect religious beliefs is like asking me to respect the Nazis -- they're both equally irrational illogical hate mongering groups
-
no flaming, guys. that doesn't get anywhere.
evolution seems a bit dodgy to me, actually; go ahead, call me narrowminded and all that, but apparently that process you were talking about, Kazan, where lightning sparks off the creation of the replicator molecule? the experiment that repeated that was biased in that the gases used for ''atmosphere" were not what would have appeared at the estimated time the molecule appeared, and the molecules created in the lab were not stable. I heard that somewhere and i can't be bothered to look for the references, sorry.
-
icespeed: can you back up your assertion that the gases wouldn't have been present at the estimated time that they appeared
also i wasn't talking about evolution - i was talking about Abiogenesis, please get the terms straight - they're MASSIVELY different
[edit]
(just noticed the end of your post)
If you cannot look up references then don't try to make an assertion please
[micro]Evolution = process through which changes are promoted, or not, in a species one the mutation occurs
Abiogenesis = explaining how the first organic compounds were generated
I severely doubt the validity of your source - because what changed the atmosphere from what it origionally made it up was mostly single celled organisms
-
Originally posted by Kazan
aldo: you are completely and totally off base and now you are just down to argumentum ad hominem
i tolerate different opinions constantly - WHEN THEY MAKE SENSE, when they are logical, plausable, etc
tolerating ignorance, irrationalism, illogical, etc is something nobody should have to do - but i tolerate it in that they can go ahead and do anything in their personal life that they want, be it being completely convinced that science if complete and utter bull**** and that "God is going to save" them.
However - i draw the line at RESPECTING unreasonable beliefs, expecting me to respect religious beliefs is like asking me to respect the Nazis -- they're both equally irrational illogical hate mongering groups
:rolleyes: On you go there son - you show em!
Originally posted by icespeed
no flaming, guys. that doesn't get anywhere.
evolution seems a bit dodgy to me, actually; go ahead, call me narrowminded and all that, but apparently that process you were talking about, Kazan, where lightning sparks off the creation of the replicator molecule? the experiment that repeated that was biased in that the gases used for ''atmosphere" were not what would have appeared at the estimated time the molecule appeared, and the molecules created in the lab were not stable. I heard that somewhere and i can't be bothered to look for the references, sorry.
NB: IIRC, I did read a query on the (name escapes me) experiment, where the reaction was achieved without oxygen (oxygen apparently destroys amino acid reactions or something, and would have screwed the experiment).
However, oxidation in rocks from the time of the birth of life apparently indicates the prescence of oxygen... I think it's alluded to in that link i posted earlier, although there are other options open for the creation of life. Of course - there's the obvious possibility that, whatever happened, we just got lucky. Something sparked at a good time, and it clicked and we had life.
-
Originally posted by Kazan
Blaise: in correct
No. Unless, of course, you have some way of proving that this world we live in is real, is true... or even for proving that there is any reality, any truth at all.
You can't. You have to take it on faith that it is real, it does matter, it's not a dream or something implanted into your head or created a bazillion years old five minutes ago... or, you do not claim that this world is real at all. And the point of my post was to see if you were claiming that, or if you were merely being selective in your judgement and targeting religion exclusively, even though the matter of 'truth' is exactly the same - at the very least, in terms of provability, which is where it counts.
-
Blaise
Nihilism (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=nihilism)
Axiom (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=axiom)
Faith (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=faith)
all Dictionary.com
trying to argue against logic and science as the basis of things by trying to use Nihilism is self-defeating and is more importantly: a straw man
-
okay. my wrong, i got the terms wrong. however, that doesn't mean my assertation in invalid, it just means i cant be bothered to look up the references (specially since i have to go to class now.)
besides which, evolution itself is a dodgy idea- the second law of thermodynamics, note use of word 'law', tells us that a system decreases in complexity as time goes on. but evolution says that the system increases in complexity, thereby directly contradicting the law. explain that.
-
Originally posted by icespeed
okay. my wrong, i got the terms wrong. however, that doesn't mean my assertation in invalid, it just means i cant be bothered to look up the references (specially since i have to go to class now.)
besides which, evolution itself is a dodgy idea- the second law of thermodynamics, note use of word 'law', tells us that a system decreases in complexity as time goes on. but evolution says that the system increases in complexity, thereby directly contradicting the law. explain that.
Well, to be fair
a) they apply to different fields (IIRC)
b) evolution doesn't imply additional complexity - if a simpler organism has an advantage, then it can form the 'next stage'
-
True. And then there's the argument that sometimes disorder in one part of a closed system can lead to order in another part. I think the classical example is a room full of randomly distributed blocks, where shuffling the blocks in one corner leads to a settling of blocks in another corner.
(I present the above without proof. Now Kazan, if you were fair-minded, you should challenge me to go find the reference for it. ;))
But if evolution is impartially random, it should reach a point at which further disturbance would collapse the system under construction. Tornado in a junkyard. :)
-
Originally posted by Goober5000
True. And then there's the argument that sometimes disorder in one part of a closed system can lead to order in another part. I think the classical example is a room full of randomly distributed blocks, where shuffling the blocks in one corner leads to a settling of blocks in another corner.
(I present the above without proof. Now Kazan, if you were fair-minded, you should challenge me to go find the reference for it. ;))
But if evolution is impartially random, it should reach a point at which further disturbance would collapse the system under construction. Tornado in a junkyard. :)
I think I've heard of that theory (or something similar).... where evolution and the general balance of life has a natural instability, but where subtle changes (biological or behvioural) can shift that entire balance and destroy the ecosystem. Can remember the name of it, though....
*quick think*
Actually, I think it may be 'Gamblers Ruin'. Based on inherent trends in random systems - i.e. the gambler always loses in the end.
EDIT - couldn't find anything on the web that was too enlightening (and I'm going to be now) - I know Gamblers ruin does describe biological populations, not sure if it also applies to evolutionary theory.
-
Originally posted by icespeed
okay. my wrong, i got the terms wrong. however, that doesn't mean my assertation in invalid, it just means i cant be bothered to look up the references (specially since i have to go to class now.)
besides which, evolution itself is a dodgy idea- the second law of thermodynamics, note use of word 'law', tells us that a system decreases in complexity as time goes on. but evolution says that the system increases in complexity, thereby directly contradicting the law. explain that.
your understanding of the second law of thermodynamics is flawed --
i'll just state the most important flaw
the second law only applies when Work (mass * force) is not being done
a reference would be nice from goober
-
Originally posted by Kazan
a reference would be nice from goober
:)
Thanks. But, er, after spending several minutes looking for the example, I can't find it, and I've got a meeting I've got to go to in eight minutes. So you'll just have to take what I said on faith. :nervous: :lol:
(Apologies - I'll try to look it up this evening. :))
-
Originally posted by Grey Wolf 2009
Then what is your opinion, Setekh, on things such as the Catholic belief in purgatory, or the Calvinist belief in predetermination? Or the rejected apocryphal books, such as the Apocalypse of Peter? If you are certain that the leaders of the Church were divinely guided when choosing the books of the Bible at the Council of Nicea, were they also divinely guided when developing the concepts of predetermination and purgatory? And if the writers of the accepted Gospels were divinely guided, who guided the writers of the rejected books?
Well noted. On points of doctrinal development, I don't feel a need to point to divine guidance, as mis-interpretation of God's Word is not excluded by the canon being divinely chosen. (Btw, I subscribe to many of Calvin's beliefs, though most people's understanding of them is very simplistic: most commonly, that predetermination excludes the necessity of human responsibility. It's more complex than that, but I'm no expert in the area, so I will refrain to discuss it for now.)
As for the rejected books: I have no objection to the possiblity that the rejected books were written with the best intentions of their authors and contained great points of knowledge and wisdom. I am also willing to admit that some of them may have contained content inspired by God (as with the point of Old Testament prophecies - literally hundreds of prophecies, as inspired as what we call the twelve minor prophets, were excluded from the Hebrew Scriptures). The explanation I offer is that God did not feel a need to include those books. Perhaps they added nothing to the New Testament canon. They did not carry the life-changing power that every other book that is now in the New Testament exhibited. Those are sufficient grounds, I think, to be assured that the Canon can stand up to questioning.
-
Found a link. :)
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=441
-
Nice. :):yes:
The main argument that I've found against evolution is the one of irreducible complexity - if I spelled it right. I haven't heard that refuted competently by proponents of evolutionary theory yet. Is anyone game?
-
Setekh: i would like to know how one would pose that argument in the first place... the only way i can image that is if they over extend the definition of evolution
[micro]evolution [what darwin described] = mutations occur, when a mutation occurs it can help the organism survive better, in this case it is promoted by the individuals with it breeding more prolifically since they're healthier - if the mutation harms them the opposite is true
i don't see how you could argue irreducible complexity on this one... that makes no sense.... although redefining it to make it more attackable happens constantly and when this happens that could possibly open it up to an irreducible complexity arguement
-
Ah yes, of course. Well, I have no problem with micro-evolution, and I think it still happens today - that's pretty plain. :) But you raise a good point about redefinitions of evolutionary theory. Can you clarify for me (if you know better, if not I'll go look it up), if that is what Darwin described as evolution, who came up with the theory that all life began from no life, which evolved into single-celled organisms, which evolved into multiple-celled, which...?
-
Originally posted by icespeed
besides which, evolution itself is a dodgy idea- the second law of thermodynamics, note use of word 'law', tells us that a system decreases in complexity as time goes on. but evolution says that the system increases in complexity, thereby directly contradicting the law. explain that.
Icespeed, I'd like to think that I'll give you a more thoughtful answer than Kaz will. He's in one of his tantrums again, and you can't get him to be reasonable when he's like this. So, I'll step in. Here goes:
I'm going to have to say that your understanding of the second law of thermodynamics (aptly summed up as 'entropy increases') is flawed. You're in good company though: the thermodynamics argument is used by opponents of evolution regularly (dare I say religiously), without ever examing the subject.
What the Second Law of Thermodynamics says is "entropy increases". At first blush it would apear that such a thing does not allow for evolution. However, if you follow that line of reasoning, you realize that its a false analogy: such reasoning says that you cannot be alive, because a fetus cannot grow into a person. Arguably, the transition from a single celled zygote to the multicellular, specialized organism you are today would violate the idea that 'systems decrease in complexity'.
The proper interpretation of the Second Law (IE: the one that agrees with, and predicts, facts in the observable universe) is that the net entropy of a system increases. Take, again, the example of the zygote-to-fetus development process. As previously stated, this is a system that is becoming increasingly more complex and ordered over time. However, the process produces waste products, such as fatigue toxins and heat. These things, the system must shed. These things are the entropy of a system. No matter how much order such a system achieves, in the end, not only does the system break down, but it has created more entropy in the universe than there would have been had it never come to be.
Another simple way to remember the second law is "you can't break even". In other words, no matter how much order you feed into a system, you always get back more entropy in the end.
-
sorry to interrupted but I thought somewhere someone explained that evolution there as never been any evidence of a the (oooo...cant remember) I think it's called the third stage of evolution.:confused:
Edit: They have never found a middle species. Only
the species after it that was formed
-
yeah. what jdjtcagle said.
we got told yesterday, that scientists have an amazing ability to rationalise all and any data that comes in from experiments, even if that data is flawed.
thanks mik.
I was thinking in terms of the entire earth system for the second law thing... i suppose radiation and stuff comes in from the sun, so that's not really a closed system. but if you take the entire solar system, (discounting the occasional comet) as a closed system, where there is no external input of energy, then wouldn't evolution still be against the second law? of course you'll correct me if im wrong.
and kazan, i really don't get that ''work"thing, so assume im a poor stupid girl and explain it.
-
It's true about the scientists, I think, which I think is unfortunate. It's further unfortunate that that statement usually goes unnoticed, so the conclusions of scientists are taken as canon. But science is constantly revising itself - anyone who has kept a serious eye on it for a decent measure of time will recognise that. :yes:
Originally posted by mikhael
No matter how much order such a system achieves, in the end, not only does the system break down, but it has created more entropy in the universe than there would have been had it never come to be.
I think is what cements it though, icespeed. Evolution can continue to progress whilst introducing further entropy into the solar system, so the second law is still preserved. Isn't it?
-
Originally posted by icespeed
I was thinking in terms of the entire earth system for the second law thing... i suppose radiation and stuff comes in from the sun, so that's not really a closed system. but if you take the entire solar system, (discounting the occasional comet) as a closed system, where there is no external input of energy, then wouldn't evolution still be against the second law? of course you'll correct me if im wrong.
and kazan, i really don't get that ''work"thing, so assume im a poor stupid girl and explain it.
But the solar system is not a closed system either. Matter and energy enter the solar system and leave it constantly.
Lets use a thought experiment to illustrate the issue. Another way to state the Second Law is "order is temporary". Lets imagine you have a machine that can directly measure entropy. Being a good scientist you take a current reading, so that you have a baseline with which to compare later measurements. For argument's sake, lets say that the reading for right now (Time t=0) is 0 entropy.
Now somehow, you also have a machine that lets you travel forward in time really quickly. Let's jump you forward about... oh... ten minutes. The entropy measurement you take might be higher, or it might be lower. Entropy scores that are lower than your baseline are written as negative numbers, while higher scores are positive numbers. We jump you forward over time, and measure the entropy at each stop.
No matter what happens, no matter how far into the future you go, the total sum of all your positive and negative entropy values will always be a positive number. In fact, the farther you go, the larger that sum will get. There is never enough negative numbers (decreases in entropy) to balance the positive numbers (Increases in entropy).
-
ye-e-e-es... so do you mean when the world ends (whichever way that might happen, armageddon, big comet, nuke, whatever) because the result of all that evolution has now been extinguished, this causes a rise in entropy and therefore the second law is not violated?
so... does that mean the second law can be _temporarily_ violated?
-
Originally posted by icespeed
we got told yesterday, that scientists have an amazing ability to rationalise all and any data that comes in from experiments, even if that data is flawed.
Originally posted by Setekh
It's true about the scientists, I think, which I think is unfortunate. It's further unfortunate that that statement usually goes unnoticed, so the conclusions of scientists are taken as canon. But science is constantly revising itself - anyone who has kept a serious eye on it for a decent measure of time will recognise that.[/B]
Side note, since Steak addressed it too. The fundamental bedrock precept of science is that science is a process, not a static goal. Scientists are wrong all the time. This is a good thing. The scientific method addresses this:
First, form a hypothesis.
Second, use the hypothesis to make a prediction.
Third, create an experiment to test the prediction.
Fourth, perform the experiment.
Fifth, no matter what the results of the experiment, repeat it. Analyze all the data over and over again.
Sixth, if your experiment failed, re-examine steps 1 thru 4 to try to find the source of the error. USe the scientific method to deduce this error. If your experiment succeeded, give all your data to someone else and let them repeat it so you have verification.
Now, even after all of that, science can still be wrong. Eventually someone comes along and creates a new experiment that causes an old theory to break down. Thus, the old theory is revised, and the system continues on.
Science is not a set of rules and laws that explain the way things work. Science is the process of understanding the way things work. Science is observation first, explanation second. The process of rationalisation and revision and constant re-testing is what keeps the whole thing honest and growing and trustable.
-
Originally posted by icespeed
ye-e-e-es... so do you mean when the world ends (whichever way that might happen, armageddon, big comet, nuke, whatever) because the result of all that evolution has now been extinguished, this causes a rise in entropy and therefore the second law is not violated?
so... does that mean the second law can be _temporarily_ violated?
Exactly. I can stack up legos to create a beautiful model. I cannot make that model last for eternity.
Though in truth, its not a 'temporary violation'. If you think you see a violation, its because your test sample (ie, the duration over which you observe) is too small.
-
Originally posted by jdjtcagle
sorry to interrupted but I thought somewhere someone explained that evolution there as never been any evidence of a the (oooo...cant remember) I think it's called the third stage of evolution.:confused:
Edit: They have never found a middle species. Only
the species after it that was formed
you're talking about MACROevolution - everyone in their right mind will agree that MACROevolution is in a constant state of flux and nobody has resolved cohesive data in MACROevolution
MICROevolution is what darwin described and what we're talking about
---------
Quick reference in terms of best desribing theories - of facts if noted
Creation of Universe: Big Bang
Creation of Life (ie Life from non Life): Abiogenesis
How Life Changes: [micro]Evolution (ie what darwin describe - FACT)
History of how life has changed: macroevolution (which is in constant flux as new evidence comes as they are gather evidence as fast as possible)
-
I think there might be a misrepresentation of entropy here. Entropy mostly takes place on the atomic scale- to use a simple example, say you have a dish of saturated solution, which slowly accretes into a crystal. That crystal is inarguably more ordered than the mix it came from, but entropy has still increased, because in the formation of that crystal energy of several varieties was used and dispersed. Water molecules vaporated, electrons broke free, chemical bonds were broken and reformed, little by little massive amounts of energy and matter were spread to the ambient atmosphere. It won't come back. For all intents and purposes, that energy is gone. And the universe is a less ordered place for it.
The same applies to evolution. It's actually debatable that many forms of life are more complex than nonlife here, but for the sake of the argument we'll say they're all far more ordered. Still, you've got vast amounts of physical, chemical, heat and electrical energy expended to yield each generation of life, on an inconcievable scale- far more order is destroyed on the atomic scale than is created on the larger scale.
Kaz: Um, are you sure there's a sound distinction between "macroevolution" and "microevolution"? I always had it that they were the same thing, and the distinction was entirely invented by creationists who wanted to disregard the observable factual basis of evolution. If there's a legitimate distinction made, that's another matter, but I've never heard one.
-
Abiogenesis. That's what I'm interested in. I have some reading to do... can you point to any good sources, Kaz?
-
Micro still leads up to the same species in Macro it just descibes how it happens..Right?
-
although just because jdjtcagle isnt talking about the same thing doesnt mean its not relevant... and he is, isnt he? i mean, all that second law stuff is applying to macroevolution which is where the species become richer in complexity.
ok, thanks mik, that's definitely something to keep thinking about...
hm, i dont suppose any of you would know anything about receptors, ion channels, agonists and antagonists, would you. we had that in a lecture yesterday and i dont get it.
-
hmm, htis thing is moveing faster than I thought
if we find a 'midlle species' you'll just want one that came between it and the next one, i.e. if we have species A and species E, if we find a link between them, species C, you would say that proves nothing, find something that goes between species C and E, we later find species D the link between species C and E, there would still be a gap between D and E, unless we found every member of every generation of the liniage.
this sort of reasoning displays a fundimentaly flawed understanding of evolution, namely the whole 'stages' analogy, evolution generaly does not happen in stages, but rather it is a bit easier for us to understand it if we take crossections every few million years and describe the state of a species(s) as a stage, in reality every generation is the next stage in evolution, there are no jumps larger than that.
-
i think the usual example is, how come we don't find fossils of mammal-reptiloids or reptiloid-fish, etc? there's prob an explanation for that, but.
-
jdjcagle: microevolution describes what happens with individual mutations - ie their propagation and what not. This propagation eventually leads to new species being created.
Macroevolution is looking at the fossil record to find what we can of the history of these changes, there are going to be gaps where we cannot find preserved specimens and it's always changing exactly what it says in light of finding new specimens [this is an example of the honesty of science - oops! we found something that contradicts what we said before, toss out what we had before and find up a new explaination]
==================
Abiogenesis:
first thing on google
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html
-
Agreed on the stages explanation, Bob; to think of stages already misses the fact that evolution is carried out on a micro-scale first, nothing that would totally justify a 'stage' description.
However, I want to know where eyes came from, personally. (This is the irreducible complexity thing again, I know, but it still puzzles me.)
-
Eyes are easy. Photosensitive areas have been around since the first plants, after all, and if you look at planaria and so on you can see how very rudimentary eyes formed. Over time they just got more and more complex- there was no point at which they weren't useful, or improving.
What I don't get is how the dinosaurs grew wings. If you've ever seen the pictures of some of the things between dinosaur and bird, they're just wierd, and they've got what looks like this totally unnecessary flap of skin...
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
Kaz: Um, are you sure there's a sound distinction between "macroevolution" and "microevolution"? I always had it that they were the same thing, and the distinction was entirely invented by creationists who wanted to disregard the observable factual basis of evolution. If there's a legitimate distinction made, that's another matter, but I've never heard one.
when needed the distinction can be made and hence why they both have names
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
I think there might be a misrepresentation of entropy here.
Yes, I was misrepresenting entropy in order to break it down in terms that the average person can understand. Lego stacking is hardly a rigorous scientific approach to thermodynamics, but it does cast the problem into terms that my mother can understand.
-
Photosensitivity, sure. But when does that feed into actual vision and mental comprehension? And the 'more and more complex' assertion doesn't seem to hold enough water to argue for the complexity of eyes in animals now, and the examples we've found from ancient times. Increased complexity seems to have made stages when it comes to the eye, just what Bob has already said does not really happen.
As for the flappy things, maybe they were useful for attracting mates. That's really the only reason I can think of for the formation of initially useless stuff like that.
-
[edit]GOTAMIT this thing is moveing to damned fast!
origonaly posted after Setekh's inital eye question[/edit]
eyes came from nerve endings that were sinsitive to light (as many are sinsitive to other forms of energy)
your next question will be were did light sinsitive nerve endings comde from, well I'm just going to end the cycle before it gets started. one thing leads to another, if you look at all the animals of the world you will find that all of them share many common features, the features are simply in diferent proportions, this is how the vast amount of mutaion/evolution works, very small changes that build up over time and generations.
-
or maybe the flappy things had something to do with temperature regulation? oh wait, that goes back to whether dinosaurs were warm-blooded or not doesnt it.
eyes have... lenses, fluids, photoreceptor thingies, optic nerve connection, outer casing, muscle arrangements to change things. these developed from photosensitive areas?
-
yes
"oh wait, that goes back to whether dinosaurs were warm-blooded or not doesnt it."
not realy, weather your hot or cold blodded you'll still need a way to shead exess heat, not that I think that's a particularly good explanation for were wings came from, but at least your thinking along the right track now (not saying thats a totaly daft idea though)
-
icespeed: small steps along the way - some molecules change properties when exposed to light/undergo chemical reactions, etc
that would have been the first "eye" and complexity just stepped from there when it happened to help an organism
-
but i dont understand where the lenses come in.
(i still think evolution is a stupid idea, but hey, stupider ideas have occurred in reality.)
-
I could step you through it, but I'll have to ask for a starting point, as if I go from eye to were it came from, you'll never allow me to come to an end
how about a worm that has a simple nervus system and some nerve receptors capable of detecting light
-
Originally posted by icespeed
but i dont understand where the lenses come in.
(i still think evolution is a stupid idea, but hey, stupider ideas have occurred in reality.)
how is it a stupid idea? (especially since microevolution is a proven fact and every time someone tries to honestly refute it they end up eating crow by stumbling over evidence for microevolution glaring them in the face)
Microevolution is this
Given
A) Mutations occur [we all know this is true]
A can have three effects
A1) Helps the indvidual survive
A2) Has no effect on the individual's survival
A3) Harms the individuals survival
Each of these has certain properties - the important ones are
A1) A individual that is healthier, eats more, is higher on the social order, et cetera breeds more - his/her offspring receive this gene and in term have that property and the gene spreads
A2) the gene may spread or may not spread as it has no effect on the individual's survival -- it will not spread as fast as a mutation in case A1
A3) This is the exact opposite of A1, if a gene harms the individual it is less likely to breed, et cetera
-
Bobboau: okay, some creatures respond to the presence of light through photosensitive areas. worms are a good start.
kazan: how often will microevolution through up a non-injurious mutation? and how often will that mutation survive to become the entire species? it's a question of probability.
edit: gtg, bbl to continue this most fascinating discussion...
-
icespeed: arguing probabilities is pointless for many reasons A) multiple mutations can crop up at once in different individuals not related and not geographically close to each other, C) a mutation doesn't have to spread to the entire species and often doesn't [this is how one species eventually becomes two]
et cetera
if you think something that scientists support is impossible because of your musings on the propbabilities - you're almost gauranteed to be the one who's wrong
-
ok I know this is going to end up three pages off from were it was requested, but here it goes, sorry in advance for the painfull spelling and gramer, I was typeing as fast as posable as to not be five pages behind.
important concept to remember the steps I describe do not happen quite as sequentaly as I describe them, many diferent things are going on at the same time
ok, so we have a worm, it has a bunch of light sensitive nerve endings on it's body, most likely to tell it if it needs to burrow and get out of the sun,
some of these worms have a slightly more well developed nervus system allowing them to tell wich way the light is comeing from, and they run in the opposite direction so they don't dry out and die, more of them survive than the ones with a (slightly) less developed utilisation of there senses, and over generations the speciese as a whole gets to understand were the light is comeing from better, at the same time the patturns of the nervs on the outside of there boddies is going from the origonal random distribution (becase all it did origonaly was tell them that there was light not were it's comeing from) to a more organised paturn, this is happening becase the more ordered nerv paturns are better at telling were light is comeing from than the random ones, worms that have patches of there skin covered with ever more precise paturns emerge (becase as I said the ones with less organised nervs can't run from the nasty life crushing light as well) in addition they are getting more of these nerves as haveing more of them gives them a larger sampleing of data for there simple brain like organs to determine were not to be, after a while some worms have there nerve endings organised to such an extent, and they have so many of them and they are so sensitive they not only can tell were light is comething from but also were the lack of light is comeing from (i.e. they can tell the diference between light and dark, at this point they have very primitive blurry innefective eyes, a step below the eyes insects have). as all these physical changes are happening on the outer skin of the worm inside it's nervus system evolution is at work, haveing more and more organised nerves isn't going to do you any good if you'r brain doesn't know what to do with the information it's getting. the first thing, and most important still, to evolve is a nervus system capable of understanding the information it's getting, the worms with a nervus system more apt at identifying light or later darkness are the worms that survive better, on top of that better organiseation and resolution give this system more information to work with. so as it's basic psudo mind becomes better able to cope with it's eye like colection of nerve arrays the worms with better more compact light sensitive nerves are able to, with ever more increased ability, identify a basic blurry world around them. this continues untill we have something like a simple eye.
now on to the fluff (lenses and muscles and stuff)
at this point it becomes he (though 'he' doesn't quite apply to worms) with the best eyes wins. not only do better eyes alow you to run from light but they have reached the point were the combind physical structure and internal hardwireing alow them to sence movement and general blurry shapes, alowing them to identify preditors (once again, those who don't have featuers that go with this trend are now also eaten more oftine). the 'eyes' have become an important asset to the worms, so much so that damage to the nerves means a major disadvantage, as a result cleare protective coverings have begun to develop, worms with thicker coverings have more well defented eyes, are less likely to lose these eyes, are less likely to be eaten or dry out. the coverings get thicker and thicker untill the point at witch they start to bend and focus the light. quite by accedent the worms defenceinve nerve coverings have developed into lenses, worms with a brain more able to use the sharper immages this allows are able to escape preditors and find shelter at a drasticly improved level, and of these the ones with the best formed lenses are able to see the best. muscles that origonaly were there simply to move skin and remained there as the lenses formed are now conected to places were they can change the shape of the lens, allowing some worms improved vission (wich amounts to improved surviveability, and more offspring) other mmuscles move the entier structure, worms that have mucles (wich remember were there to move skin and allow them to rithe about origonaly, but becase the skin to wich they were atached is now eye material there function has diferent effects) better able to controle the shape of the lens and the direction upon wich the whole structure is pointed have better surviveability. this trend continues untill the eye becomes fairly seperated from the rest of the skin it was once a part of. sinking into the body somewhat and developing a retractable covering make it better defended, and the shape becomes more spherical, the shape changes to what ever best suits it's function untill it becomes what you would call an eye.
there you now have worms with eyes
-
"how often will microevolution through up a non-injurious mutation?"
quite oftine
though not nearly as oftine as the ones that cause problems
non-injurious, meaning it doesn't have any bad effect at all, would almost certanly have a good effect (it's hard for a mutation to be _totaly_ nutral) this good effect would probly help anything with it survive, there for the mutation would survive and spred faster than those without it, eventualy becomeing present in all members of the population (if the mutation occured in a population seperated from others of it's own kind it would not spred outside the isolated population) liveing in the environment to wich the mutation is advantagus.
-
With all the people here providing proof and theories of evolution, maybe we'll be able to prove to everyone here that creation is a bunch of malarkey, and the creationists here will realize that creationism is simply not science at all. ;7
Hope springs eternal. :D
-
yeah, that'll happen :nod:
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
What I don't get is how the dinosaurs grew wings. If you've ever seen the pictures of some of the things between dinosaur and bird, they're just wierd, and they've got what looks like this totally unnecessary flap of skin...
Yeah, but they made those piccys up, really.... IIRC it's an utter bugger to find reliable skin impressions of dinosaurs (I think there's a few from the Hadrosaurs) firsly, and secondly the first flying dinosaurs / birds would have had a fragile bone structure & thus be less likely to fossilize intact.
I think one of the key bird-dino skeletons was debunked,too... not sure if it was an Aerchyopterix, but I remember it originating from China. Not that it really matters in this case....
Um, oh yeah. Small dinosaurs learned to glide because it'd give them an advantage in terms of speed, I think - y'know, for catching insects and escaping predators.
This is kind of what i meant about the unsolved areas of evolution, BTW - the processes that, for example, not only give an animal the ability to glide, but also the behavioural instincts to use that ability..... I think that area is one that's very difficult to explore - the whole self-crystallizing behaviour type thing. Because it's obviously veyr hard to understand an animals thought processes anyways, never mind when they're fossilized.
(god damn...can;t remember any dino names nowadays)
-
Science can NEVER explain all...
There are thing it just CAN'T and won't be able to (even in a million Years) to explain...Like how did the universe starrt..
Sure...they have some crappy theories that have more holes in them than swiss chesse...and they made them up only so they could say something, but the truth is ..and the scentist admitt this, that they can't explain it...
For you others I don't know, but I see proof around me that God exists...everywhere.. The unoiveres is too big, too beautifull, too complex, yet at the same thime so well ordered, that it cannot be the product of pure chance...
Allso, you ask proff for the existence of GOd, yet you take for granted some things that you cannot prove (like love)..
There is no way you can proove to me that you love something...science can't..yet you still belive in it..
-
trashman: "science can NEVER explain all" justify that statement
"more holes than swiss cheese" justify that statement
"proof around me that God exists" justify that statement (the universe is NOT complex, what is it with you people - youi ascribe invalid attributes to the universe just so you can run to your litttle deity for answer)
youi can actually prove love - that arguments been dumb and dead for years
-
Originally posted by Setekh
Abiogenesis. That's what I'm interested in. I have some reading to do... can you point to any good sources, Kaz?
I HIGHLY reccomend anyone who wants to talk about evolution reads The Selfish Gene (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0192860925/002-3762520-5024048?v=glance) first.
The sequel The Blind Watchmaker explains where the eye comes from as well as other similar puzzles in evolution but it's much harder going if you haven't read the first book.
-
kara
Abiogenesis != evolution
-
Originally posted by Kazan
kara
Abiogenesis != evolution
Read the books. Not only do they cover two competing theories for abiogenesis (Primordial soup and Cairn Smith's crystals theory) they also cover other things that the anti-evolutionists have trouble with.
-
Science makes up theories until you can have proof that it does or doesn't happen that way.
Religion makes something up and if something doesn't seem right they either try to maintain there position or change a bit of the dogma they follow.
So if you are complaining about theories with "more holes than swiss cheese" I suggest you revise whatever religion you follow (not insulting, just giving a suggestion).
-
ghostavo: science generates theories off observation, when a new observation comes along that contradicts the theory the theory is either tossed out and replaced, or it is revised
-
It's kind of what I wanted to say... sorry if it came out wrongly said
-
Here's an interesting question - how would you know if science had answered everything?
And what would the consequence be?
-
If there aren't any more questions to be asked, which is impossible...
As for consequences... you would know the fate of the universe itself, it's past, present and future history... kind of wierd don't you think? :D
-
Originally posted by Ghostavo
If there aren't any more questions to be asked, which is impossible...
As for consequences... you would know the fate of the universe itself, it's past, present and future history... kind of wierd don't you think? :D
Well, that's the thing y'see - how can you tell if all the questions have been asked?
mind-boggling, innit?
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Here's an interesting question - how would you know if science had answered everything?
Scientists would get laid more than rock stars :D Not to mention that they'd live in giant ivory towers heated by the dead bodies of grant approval committe members
-
Originally posted by karajorma
Scientists would get laid more than rock stars :D Not to mention that they'd live in giant ivory towers heated by the dead bodies of grant approval committe members
Or heated by the dead bodies of debunked creationists. :D
"Throw another log on the fire!" ;)
-
Originally posted by Su-tehp
Or heated by the dead bodies of debunked creationists. :D
"Throw another log on the fire!" ;)
Where do you think they'd get the ivory from? :D
-
LOL! That's exactly what the world needs! It's poachers and creationists who need to be endangered species! :cool: :D
-
Originally posted by Kazan
youi can actually prove love - that arguments been dumb and dead for years
REally? How?
You gonna prove to me that you love your Mother by jumping infont of a bullet ment for her?
What does that prove? Maby you're just a suicidal fruitcake!?
You will mesure brain acitivity? What does a higher electrical activity in a brain section mean? Love? Can you prove that?
No....
I LOVE science...I enjoy watching science shows.
Originaly posted by Kazan"proof around me that God exists" justify that statement (the universe is NOT complex, what is it with you people - youi ascribe invalid attributes to the universe just so you can run to your litttle deity for answer)
The universe is incredibly complex adn simple at the same time...
Or do you care to explain and prove wormholes, balck holes and N phenomena in space that humanity knows nothing about and that are described with forumulas so complex that you would be dead before you even began to understood them....
And I don't run to God for answers...he is everywhere....
*I bet this pisses you off*
-
TrashMan: brain scans, behavior observation, etc
wormholes aren't accepted as a fact - it's just a theory
black holes are simple - it's a huge gravity well
the formulae to describe the behavior being complex doesn't mean the force is complex - the equasion describing gravity is com0plex by your definition im sure (rational polynomial function) but gravity is a simple force
-
Sheesh, I go away for two pages and the subject totally changes.
So, Kazan, who is to say your beliefs (beliefs in science) are right. What you believe is logical on the supposition that science is right. It may not be right. Infact, 9 times out of 10, it probably won't be, we just don't know it yet. You can't prove irrevocably, that what you believe to be right actually is so. It is right from your point of view
The beliefs of those who believe in god, are logical on the supposition that god exists. You cannot prove it, nor can you say it's false. But from their point of view, gods miracles are logical.
Since neither of you can prove that their version is right, you therefore have no reason to say that their belief in god is more reprehensible or wrong, than your belief in science.
-
Originally posted by Stunaep
Sheesh, I go away for two pages and the subject totally changes.
So, Kazan, who is to say your beliefs (beliefs in science) are right. What you believe is logical on the supposition that science is right. It may not be right. Infact, 9 times out of 10, it probably won't be, we just don't know it yet. You can't prove irrevocably, that what you believe to be right actually is so. It is right from your point of view
The beliefs of those who believe in god, are logical on the supposition that god exists. You cannot prove it, nor can you say it's false. But from their point of view, gods miracles are logical.
Since neither of you can prove that their version is right, you therefore have no reason to say that their belief in god is more reprehensible or wrong, than your belief in science.
That was the most long winded "shut up everyone" that I've ever heard. Well done. :)
-
Originally posted by Stunaep
So, Kazan, who is to say your beliefs (beliefs in science) are right. What you believe is logical on the supposition that science is right. It may not be right. Infact, 9 times out of 10, it probably won't be, we just don't know it yet. You can't prove irrevocably, that what you believe to be right actually is so. It is right from your point of view
Actually, that argument is predicated on a misunderstanding of the nature of science. Science is not predicated on belief. It is predicated on observation of the real world. When you drop a ball, science says the ball falls to the floor. Why? Because observation shows that in all cases where this theory has been tested, the ball falls to the floor. The moment the ball fails to fall to the floor, all those centuries of experimentation go out the window, and we start trying to explain how there can be an exception.
If you really want to characterise the difference between science and faith, Stu, think you can see science as external (it comes from outside ourselves) and faith as internal (its something we feel, or intuit from inside ourselves).
At least that's my fruity opinion.
-
Originally posted by Stunaep
Sheesh, I go away for two pages and the subject totally changes.
So, Kazan, who is to say your beliefs (beliefs in science) are right. What you believe is logical on the supposition that science is right. It may not be right. Infact, 9 times out of 10, it probably won't be, we just don't know it yet. You can't prove irrevocably, that what you believe to be right actually is so. It is right from your point of view
The beliefs of those who believe in god, are logical on the supposition that god exists. You cannot prove it, nor can you say it's false. But from their point of view, gods miracles are logical.
Since neither of you can prove that their version is right, you therefore have no reason to say that their belief in god is more reprehensible or wrong, than your belief in science.
That's a rather poor arguement and I'm sure even you know it. Let me put it this way. Suppose I put you in a room with a psychopath who believes that cutting your head off will turn you into an angel. You on the other hand don't believe this.
Should we say that that due to the fact neither of you can prove you're right that there is nothing more wrong in the psycho trying to cut your head off than in you trying to keep it?
Of course not.
-
Originally posted by mikhael
If you really want to characterise the difference between science and faith, Stu, think you can see science as external (it comes from outside ourselves) and faith as internal (its something we feel, or intuit from inside ourselves).
At least that's my fruity opinion.
My point in here is, that there is no way you can judge religion to be any more reprehensible, or that you should automatically consider teaching religion to your children "ruining them". They have as much to believe in God than you have to believe in science. Neither of you can prove that the other is wrong.
As for ball example, yes you can say that the ball falls to the floor. But the question is why does the ball fall to the floor. Science sais it's because the effects of gravity make it fall. How was gravity made? Science provides some interesting, unproven hypothethis. Religion said it was God's making. Neither are proven, or any more correct than the other.
Should we say that that due to the fact neither of you can prove you're right that there is nothing more wrong in the psycho trying to cut your head off than in you trying to keep it?
Now we're venturing into a whole different area. This is already more of a moral issue, which if anything has got to more with religion than science. But most likely neither. If we took moral reasoning into account, we'd go into moral variables, religious variables, and the entire argument would go out of hand. I did assume that the religious person and scientific person have the same moral codes.
Leaving morals out, yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. It makes perfect sense by the logic of the psycho. But in our culture, killing people without their consent (or with their consent in most countries even) is wrong. So that would suck.
[edit] Mik: For science to be completely externally proven, you would have to have some prime theory, that would explain everything. The things the superstring theory, or the chaos theory try to explain. But those theories are for the time being incomplete, and unproven. You choose to believe in them just as you choose to believe in God.
-
i completely missed stunaep's argument
stu - that argument is BEYOND week - science is simply a logical process - when ever someone makes a logical argument they technically are making a scientific argument
the "supposition god exists" is simply a supposition - it is illogical and unsupportable - all that follows off that supposition is therefore the same
-
yes, only thing is, it ain't illlogical. You have no evidence to either back it up, or deny it. It ain't logical, but it ain't illogical either. For all we know, there may actually be a giant man with a white beard running the show, you can't prove it anymore than the superstring theory.
[edit] For more information on my train of thought, I suggest you read Stanislaw Lem's "The Travels of Ijon Tichy"
-
Err, anyone ever consider that thought science is a light to shine on the universe and our existence, perhaps we are not yet ready so see the truth. I mean, even the most...unfeeling (logical etc) of us, and yes that includes Kaz and CP and everyone else, could not live in a world totally devoid of faith. Given enough time, you would do one of several things:
1) Blow your brains out
2) Go mad
3) Realize that, in the end, it doesn't really matter. Faith, science, not of it actually matters, becuase its beyond the scope of human reason to accept either in their total, pure states.
To me, faith is not a prop, something you need in your life in order to comprehend the vastness of reailty. Faith is part of us, part of humanity. Perhaps we will one day evolve to the point where we no longer want (notice I didn't say need) faith, but I for one hope that never happens.
Its sort of a catch 22 that having faith is not a process of reason, but also that the reason for having faith is not a processs of reason.
or, thats what I reckon, for the time being anyway.
-
I don't think science is incompatible with religion, although I think already made that argument earlier.
It's where the phrase 'God is in the details' comes from..... the basic purpose of science is understanding our existence and the world / universe we live.
Someone who believes in God may simply extend that to understanding how God works as well as how the world works, or whanot. It's just a matter of perspective.
-
Originally posted by Stunaep
As for ball example, yes you can say that the ball falls to the floor. But the question is why does the ball fall to the floor. Science sais it's because the effects of gravity make it fall. How was gravity made? Science provides some interesting, unproven hypothethis. Religion said it was God's making. Neither are proven, or any more correct than the other.
Actually, no. Science does not look at a falling ball and say 'gravity makes this happen'. Science looks at a falling ball and says 'this ball always falls'. The concept of gravity is not as a thing or something made. 'Gravity' is merely the rigourous explanation that 'balls fall and the observed rate is...' Scientific theory is codification of observation.
[edit] Mik: For science to be completely externally proven, you would have to have some prime theory, that would explain everything. The things the superstring theory, or the chaos theory try to explain. But those theories are for the time being incomplete, and unproven. You choose to believe in them just as you choose to believe in God.
Science can never be completely proven to be true. You can only prove it not wrong in known circumstances. There's a very important semantic difference there.
-
Originally posted by Stunaep
Now we're venturing into a whole different area. This is already more of a moral issue, which if anything has got to more with religion than science. But most likely neither. If we took moral reasoning into account, we'd go into moral variables, religious variables, and the entire argument would go out of hand. I did assume that the religious person and scientific person have the same moral codes.
Leaving morals out, yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. It makes perfect sense by the logic of the psycho. But in our culture, killing people without their consent (or with their consent in most countries even) is wrong. So that would suck.
I deliberately left morals out of the question. The psycho believes he is doing you a favour. He's helping you assend to a higher plane. He thinks he's doing something nice for you. The question is mearly one of belief. Your scientific belief that killing you makes you dead vs his belief that that he's doing something good.
By your own arguement neither view is more correct so I guess you'd have to flip a coin over who does what, right?
Somehow I doubt you'd do that. You'd simply choose the path of logic and say "cutting off my head is sceintifically proven to kill me. There is less proof you're correct so let's go with keeping me alive huh?"
Originally posted by Rictor
Err, anyone ever consider that thought science is a light to shine on the universe and our existence, perhaps we are not yet ready so see the truth. I mean, even the most...unfeeling (logical etc) of us, and yes that includes Kaz and CP and everyone else, could not live in a world totally devoid of faith. Given enough time, you would do one of several things:
1) Blow your brains out
2) Go mad
3) Realize that, in the end, it doesn't really matter. Faith, science, not of it actually matters, becuase its beyond the scope of human reason to accept either in their total, pure states.
I disagree with you completely their Rictor. I would love to live in a world devoid of faith where all the people were atheists. I would do none of those things. I would continue to live my life without having to worry about people using religion to shove their point of view on me.
Sounds pretty good to me :)
-
Originally posted by karajorma
I disagree with you completely their Rictor. I would love to live in a world devoid of faith where all the people were atheists. I would do none of those things. I would continue to live my life without having to worry about people using religion to shove their point of view on me.
Sounds pretty good to me :)
no fundamentalism, no terrorism or wars over ideological beliefs, no hatred towards anyone not subscribing to a belief structure, no homophobia, no racism (well,not religious related, at least), no sectarianism or bigotry....... i wouldn;t argue.
Would make Old Firms games less intense, though...........:nervous:
-
Originally posted by karajorma
I deliberately left morals out of the question. The psycho believes he is doing you a favour. He's helping you assend to a higher plane. He thinks he's doing something nice for you. The question is mearly one of belief. Your scientific belief that killing you makes you dead vs his belief that that he's doing something good.
By your own arguement neither view is more correct so I guess you'd have to flip a coin over who does what, right?
Somehow I doubt you'd do that. You'd simply choose the path of logic and say "cutting off my head is sceintifically proven to kill me. There is less proof you're correct so let's go with keeping me alive huh?"
I probably would. But that doesn't make the possibility of becoming an angel after death any less smaller. I reserve the right to make my own decisions based on my beliefs. But I'm not going to consider anyone else to be reprehensible because of that.
Sure, I'll consider the psycho to be insane, but that's because he's trying to impose his beliefs on me, by killing me, both which are morally...well, not supported. But if someone believed that dying would make one an angel, sure, I've got no problem with that.
Mik: So, ultimately there is a fair chance of god existing. So, find any reason why someone should be considered reprehensible for believing in god?
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
no fundamentalism, no terrorism or wars over ideological beliefs, no hatred towards anyone not subscribing to a belief structure, no homophobia, no racism (well,not religious related, at least), no sectarianism or bigotry....... i wouldn;t argue.
Would make Old Firms games less intense, though...........:nervous:
let's take this by the world now. A world devoid of faith, as in faith, not only in God, but in any abstract non-scientifical thought would mean as well as god also, would mean a world devoid of music, devoid of art, no Nietsche, No Rabelais, no Dostoyevski, no Mozart, no Jerusalem, no Constantinople, no Moscow, no Kiev, no Paris, no Colosseum, no Pantheon, no Notre-Dame.
I'm not sure I'd like it.
-
I just remembered a line from the movie Red Planet. Ok fine, not the greatest of films, but it had some interesting characters. One of them was an old(er) scientist who (I presume) lived his life in the pursuit of science. Then one day, he turned to religion. When Val Kilmer asks him why, he says "Because science couldn't answer any of the really important questions."
You say you would like to live in a world without faith, but have you considered what that entails? Faith includes all that which cannot scientifically be proven. Science deals of in facts, not opinions of morals.
In this world, there would be nothing wrong with killing a person. For no reason at all, just like that. There is no scientific reason why you shouldn't. Same goes for inflicting pain and misery. Same goes for cruelty, for exploitation. Its a matter of morality, since morality is subjective, who is to say yours is better than mine?
Science can never answer any of the existential questions. Not because we don't have the refinement or the technology, but because it is by definition beyond the scope of science. In a world without faith, you would have no purpose at all for being. You just are. There's no reason to do or not do anything, because you ave no meaning. Your're not even a machine. A machine has a purpose. But science can never tell us what your purpose is, it can never tell us if we have one at all.
Think about this. You have no purpose, you just are. Nothing more, nothing less. There's no reaosn, no meaning. Not even survival of the species, not anything. You just are. I doubt any human will ever be able to live in such a world, to face such a reality. You may think you can, but you're wrong. Its like saying that you could survive being hit by freight train. You've never tried, nor has anyone else (and lived to tell about it). You may think you know the consequences, but the consequence is a total loss of...everything.
Its pretty short sighted to say that faith is responsible only for murder, intolerance and so forth. These can and are being worked out of the human system of faith. Faith is being refined to get rid of all the bad. Give it some time, and faith will no longer be associated with any of those things.
Science is the house which you build. The tools are logic, reason, observation, experimentation. With science you can build yourself a pretty nice house. Faith is the Universe in which that house resides. No Universe, no house.
-
You are incorrect.
Religion does not imply morality, nor does morality imply religion. The two are seperate. Linking the two with any form of dependency is a false relationship.
You can use either one to SUPPORT the other, but neither one NEEDS the other.
-
Yes, but morality does imply faith. We all take morality as some kind of higher principles, none of which can really be explained by science. So morality is in and of itself a religion.
-
Heres an analogy.
You have two paintings. One is 1m X 1m, the other is 1000m X 1000m. m is meters.
You have then hanging on a wall, side by side. The room is dark, and there are two spotlights being shone on the paintings. The spotlights are 1m X 1m. So, they illuminate the entire smaller picture, but only a portion of the larger picture. With the spotlight set up the way they are, you percieve that there are two pictures, side by side. You only see what is illuminated by the spotlight, so you think that both are 1m X 1m in size.
The part of the larger picture that is illuminated by the spotlight shows the same stuff as the whole of the smaller pciture. That is to say, it is the same subject, painted the same way etc. Only in the smaller picture, this is done more masterully. The technique is better, the colours are better and so forth. In regards to this specific part of the pciture, the smaller one is superiour to the larger one. However, because its dark, you can't see the rest of the larger pciture. So, you assume that that is all there is, and you think the smaller one is better. But it is also more limited. Much more. In fact, the rest of the larger pciture, which is not illuminated, is beautifully drawn. Its stunning how amazig it iS. But you can't see it. You can only see the small portion, and becuase of this, you think that the smaller picture is a superior substitute for the larger picture.
The small picture is science, and large one is faith.
-
I didn't say religion. I said faith. Religion is a subset of faith. Faith is larger than just religion, or just morality or any one of its subsets.
eg. Not all clothing is pants, but all pants are clothing.
-
Originally posted by Stunaep
Yes, but morality does imply faith. We all take morality as some kind of higher principles, none of which can really be explained by science. So morality is in and of itself a religion.
Morality does not imply faith.
My idea of morality come from acting in my own self interests. I don't need faith or religion to guide me. I only have to look to my own comfort and survival.
Thus, I am the single example that proves your "we all" false.
-
Originally posted by mikhael
Morality does not imply faith.
My idea of morality come from acting in my own self interests. I don't need faith or religion to guide me. I only have to look to my own comfort and survival.
Thus, I am the single example that proves your "we all" false.
So, if people let you randomly go around, and viciously kill everyone you want, without any kind of punsihment, you'd do that?
Your comfort is based on the general moral that killing, mocking people etc. is bad. This is based straight on christianity at these parts of the world. It still remains faith-related.
-
Incorrect. I don't go around randomly killing because I hold people's right to life higher than my urge to kill. It is in my best interests to hold strong to my personal, intellectually reasoned out morals.
You may base your morality on faith. That's good. Be careful about telling me upon what I base mine. Until you're in my skull, you can't really speak intelligently about how I think and feel.
-
Originally posted by mikhael
Incorrect. I don't go around randomly killing because I hold people's right to life higher than my urge to kill. It is in my best interests to hold strong to my personal, intellectually reasoned out morals.
So tell me, on what grounds do you hold a persons right to life higher than your urge to kill? Logically, you should do whatever fits your agenda best. If you could kill someone weaker, without punishment to achieve something that you would evolve through, the rules of evolution dictate that you should do it.
-
Obviously you don't understand game theory. ;)
Short term gains and long term gains are not intrinsically related. In other words, if I kill someone now, I cannot exploit them for resources later. Further, they may have friends who may kill me in revenge.
Logically, I must examine a reasonable number of possible alternatives for any choice and take the course that leads to the best possible result for me with least possible negative repercussions.
BTW: The 'rules of evolution' say nothing about what an individual must or should do. You might mean that 'natural selection' implys what an individual should do.THat's hardly the same thing.
-
Originally posted by Stunaep
So tell me, on what grounds do you hold a persons right to life higher than your urge to kill? Logically, you should do whatever fits your agenda best. If you could kill someone weaker, without punishment to achieve something that you would evolve through, the rules of evolution dictate that you should do it.
but not the group dynamic..... humankind evolved as a very weak creature, in physical terms. What this meant was that we had to work in groups to compensate, which probably forms the bulk of what has become the moral code. In stone age times, every person would be needed. Those who were too weak, would have died rather than be killed - killing them would be a waste of time & energy in tough times.
Also, because human children are born relatively underdeveloped, there's a requirement to look after them more - again, this would have transferred to a part of the moral code.
And over time, this moral code has become at least partially instinctual. Certainly, the parental instinct is something that doesn't need taught.... and I reckon the majority of 'caring' morals can be traced to that.
-
I see no other place where you can get it. There is no inherent morailty. Its is not self evident. I'm not talking organized religion here. Religion also had to get its ideals from somewhere. Humanity existed for a long time without religion. But not without faith. Morality is a matter of faith. Morals cannot be proven, cannot be deduced, cannot be expalined. They are not a creation of science. Therefore, they are a matter of faith.
Faith is part of your life to the point where you don't even realize its there. You may say its not there but thats because its so basic, its a given. You know of no other way to be.
-
Well then, I must just assume that you lead a very sad life.
Okay, I stand corrected. Most people base their morals on faith. Even most of those who are atheists. If it were any other way, we wouldn't have morals. Because the general morals the western society works on are based on religion.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
And over time, this moral code has become at least partially instinctual. Certainly, the parental instinct is something that doesn't need taught.... and I reckon the majority of 'caring' morals can be traced to that.
Yet by your logic, the injured, mentally ill and sick should be left for dead. Yet it is considered moral to care for them.
-
I'd say the majority of morals are based on the group dynamic.
i.e. upon what is good for the group rather than the individual.
The definition of the group (tribe, religion, town, city, friends, family, etc) does change, as does the morality within that group.
Anyways, who says the morality from religion didn't originate itself from the aforementioned group dynamic? i.e. if you're aetheistic / agnostic, and you don't believe God (or Allah, etc) handed down moral rules, then the obvious answer is that those moral rules were already known and either part of, or necessarry for, the socitey of the time. So they were just written down.
Originally posted by Stunaep
Yet by your logic, the injured, mentally ill and sick should be left for dead. Yet it is considered moral to care for them.
That's the overriding parental / caring instinct coming in, right there. As civillisation has advanced, the cost of caring has decreased. And as the ability to care for these people (and cure them) has improved, so has their potential benefit to the group.
-
I should mention that for all this talk, I behave more or less like an aethiest. I mean, I have the same quarells with religion as do aethiests and so forth. I will agree with an aethiest more often than not. But I do not believe in having no faith. No organized, codified faith, maybe, bvut not none at all.
I also object to substituting faith for science in those areas in which science does a better job. We shouln't live in the 15th century. But faith is universal and basic in mankind and streches back to when we first developed consciousness.
Having no faith, though false it may be, is a modern claim. You have two arms, two legs, one nose and faith. These are the components of man.
-
When does the stupidity stop
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
i.e. if you're aetheistic / agnostic, and you don't believe God (or Allan, etc) handed down moral rules,
I believe in Allan :D:D Who doesn't. Allan shall be our guide and our saviour :D:D
-
Faith is one of those things in life that is very hard to quantify in real terms, I think - because everyone has a set of beliefs in some way or the other.
Originally posted by Rictor
I believe in Allan :D:D Who doesn't. Allan shall be our guide and our saviour :D:D
D'oh!
Y'know, my name is actually Alan...i wonder if that was a Freudian slip ;) :nervous:
-
Originally posted by Kazan
When does the stupidity stop
Ok, name one human culture that have ever existed that had no faith. One. Its human, its basic. You can no more deny it than deny your opposable thumbs.
And since your such a proponent of logic, would you mind going through my posts (there are like 2, so its not difficult) and pointing out where I am in error. I promise to be civil and dispute the manner in an apporpriate fashion :):)
-
well, which comes down to the point, that morality and religion and faith are related.
But, I'd rather leave the biology out of this, and stay on a philosophical level. Otherwise we could end up discussing the effects of mixing natriumhydroxide with dihydrogenphosphoracid or some such ****.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Ok, name one human culture that have ever existed that had no faith. One. Its human, its basic. You can no more deny it than deny your opposable thumbs.
And since your such a proponent of logic, would you mind going through my posts (there are like 2, so its not difficult) and pointing out where I am in error. I promise to be civil and dispute the manner in an apporpriate fashion :):)
There isn't one. I would hazard a guess that all civilizations go through a period wherein they have beliefs in natural spirits, then pantheons of basic gods, then smaller pantheons of complex gods, followed by monotheism, followed by... well, you know where I'm going.
Think of it as cultural maturity and societies as children. Every kid has to learn to crawl before they walk, and how to talk before they can debate.
-
Stupid thought of the day - is the internet a culture?
-
Originally posted by mikhael
There isn't one. I would hazard a guess that all civilizations go through a period wherein they have beliefs in natural spirits, then pantheons of basic gods, then smaller pantheons of complex gods, followed by monotheism, followed by... well, you know where I'm going.
Only thing is, the amount of religious people in the world isn't getting smaller. In fact, it's getting larger. Islam is one of the fastest growing religions in the world. The number of atheists isn't any larger, than say during the times of the old greeks. Look at the old philosophical texts, a lot of them are about as atheist as the modern world
-
I'm suddenly reminded of a story by Robert Sawyer, in which two alien species land on earth and demand to talk to a paleontologist. When told by a scientist that many people don't believe in God because there is no direct, credible proof, the aliens are incredulous. They tell him that of course God exists and there's obvious proof for anyone to see.
The human and the aliens all turn out to be wrong, but its definately worth a read. For that matter, so are pretty much all of Sawyer's books. The man is brilliant.
One of them features a society of hominids (neandertals, actually) that developed with no belief in god or the supernatural. Their morals are based entirely on rational decisions making. Of course, they have no sexual taboos between adults and the men live apart from the women, coming together only to mate. Another good read: "Humans", "Hominids" and "Hybrids" are the titles, I think.
-
I don't think of it as evolution. Evolution means betterment. Belief in natural spirits is not "better" than a pantheon of gods, which is not "better" than monotheism. And, aetheism is not better than any of those. Its not more sophisticated, its just more jaded. Not for any specific reason, just cause.
And not that it matters, but I don't percieve that as time goes on, humanity will become less spiritual. I think that, like me, they will see how science and faith can co exist because they exist for different purposes. As humanity becomes more sophisticated, we will regain our faith. Or so I believe.
edit:
Aldo, I think that though the Internet is not in and of itself a culture, it is a major part of a culture. This culture, for lack of a proper name, is the 90s Net/Globalization/Post Cold War/ One World culture.
-
Difficult to say, since it is a blending of a large number of different beliefs and Morals, as the current topic shows rather well :)
I agree with Mik here, Religion is like a walking frame, it holds us up when we are unsteady on our feet. theres nothing wrong with religion par-se, but humans have always been famous as tool-makers.
Personally I think a few Morals are inbuilt, most Humans know it's wrong to kill another Human, just as most other animals don't kill each other. But Humans have this incredible ability to over-ride that 'OS' and behave in an almost fractal manner. It's this introduction of Chaos to human thinking which, in my opinion, makes most of the difference.
Take as an recent example, the debate on homosexuality, the word 'Morals' was bandied about a lot during that thread, but these kind of morals are subjective, they apply only to the person who is viewing the situation, every other person in the world may have different feelings about what they are seeing/reading etc. These morals, I feel, are imprinted onto you by your environment, I would say such things as 'Honour' and 'National Pride' and 'Thrift' are all subjective.
This doesn't mean they are bad, it just means they were put into place after your birth, even a very young child is aware of when their parent is in pain or is sad, and responds in kind, but thinks absolutely nothing about running around the house completely naked.
Flipside :D
-
Myths perpetuated by the faithful.
1) Atheist morals can only be derived from science.
An atheist doesn't believe in any gods. That's it. The definition of atheism. Nowhere does it say that an atheist is a vulcan and has renounced all emotion in favour of science. That's a complete fabrication.
I don't cheat on my girlfriend because I love her, not cause some all powerful diety or scientific reasoning tells me not to. In fact the scientific part of my brain tells me that my love is mostly due to hormones flowing round my body in an attempt by my genes to trick my brain into staying with her for long enough to raise children. Guess what. I don't care!
I don't care either that science tells me that I'd be able to father more children if I did cheat on her. To be honest I don't give a damn about that because I'm listening to my emotions.
I don't kill people because I empathise with them. I wouldn't want someone to kill me. That's why I can put myself in their position. Empathy is very important for intelligent creatures that live in groups. In fact it's so important that we aren't the only creatures able to do it
From the
BBC Horizon website (http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2004/demonicapetrans.shtml)
Dr JANE GOODALL: There’s absolutely no question that chimpanzees understand the needs and the emotions of other chimpanzees and respond correctly. They can even understand the needs of another human being, so clearly they do have theory of mind.
Well if most chimps can decide not to kill their own kind (even though some do) without needing to resort to religious texts then I see no reason that I should need them either. If a chimp can arrive at a moral framework without the need for faith I see no reason I need it.
If you don't believe that chimps normally act morally read up on a certain sadistic bastard called Frodo and see what happens when a chimp abandons that morality.
Prof MARTIN MULLER (Michigan University): It was in August of 1988, so we were with our ten males and they were patrolling. We could hear them screaming and very excited, and we heard them pounding, it sounded like they were pounding on the ground. And we realised that, that our chimps were with a chimp from their neighbouring community that they had killed and the pounding that they were doing was on his body, they were still pounding on his chest, and it was horrific. The whole front of the, of the chimpanzee was covered with thirty or forty puncture wounds and lacerations, the, the ribs were sticking up out of the rib cage because they’d, they’d beaten on his chest so hard. They’d ripped his trachea out, they’d removed his testicles, they’d torn off toe nails and finger nails, and it was clear what had happened, was that some of the males had held him down while the others attacked.
NARRATOR: Slowly it dawned on scientists that chimpanzees were not like us just because they could think, reason and use tools. They were like us because they could be cruel.
Prof RICHARD WRANGHAM: There is a sense in which this looks sadistic, the, the joy, this is kind of hard to take you know because again it’s got horrible echoes of what happens with humans at times. The males who attack, they do seem to take a certain joy in the attack, their drinking of the blood sometimes, or the biting, gripping with the teeth of the skin on part of the arm and then rearing the head back and taking the skin with it and tearing it all the way around. They look as though they’re in a state of, of intense excitement and maybe joy.
NARRATOR: Chimpanzees can be described as sadistic because they have theory of mind, they know when they’re inflicting pain. Not all animals have this ability.
Bet you'll never look at a chimp in a nappy quite the same again :)
2) Without God there can be no morals
So if someone were to conclusively prove the bible false tomorrow (say by using a time machine and proving that Jesus didn't perform any miracles) would the religious immediately go out and murder their children and cheat on their wives? Well some of them probably would because it was only the fear of going to hell that was stopping them from acting like animals. But most of them have plugged in to the same morality that I have and wouldn't.
They may dress it up and say that they don't do those things because the bible says it is wrong but deep down even if the bible was proved false most people don't kill their children cause they love them, not cause they are scared of God or convinced by religious texts that it's wrong.
3) Without a God who's to say that your morality is better than mine? Isn't it just mob rule.
Yep. And the difference from the way things are now is...?
Even with religion no one can decide who is correct. It just ends up as my religion is better than your religion pissing contests. At least with God removed from the arguement the contest is about the matter at hand rather than what was written down in a book several thousend years ago.
-
Rictor: There were several states with no "faith", most recently the Communist nations. Was there quasireligious political zealotry? Of course. That is where you'll find the universal, not in some need for the nebulous concept of a God (and, honestly, most of the gods were absolutely nothing like the Christian God, hell, a good number of them would better qualify as regular people with supernatural powers). The greater mass of people need a father figure watching over them telling them what to do, something to assuage their fear of the unknown, and a justification to hate those who are different from them. Religion provides all of these, as do political philosophies like fascism and Stalinism.
Presuming that in the long run totalitarian governments and other forms of political fanaticism don't overtake us all, yes, religion probably will stay, in one form or another. But it's important not to mistake why, and the events of the previous century in particular have made the reasons quite clear (though, really, there's evidence in every century of much the same).
Jaded? Hardly. The world is so much more interesting when you can't look at some glorious structure or improbable natual formation, glaze your eyes over, and say the big man in the sky did it. It's only when you look at the world from a standpoint of the real that you realize how damned intricate every little thing is.
Stu: Um, you're probably reading wrong. Atheism tended to get you a death penalty in Greek civilization, so even were it imaginable to most of the philosophers they certainly wouldn't have gone about making a show of it. There were a few who were critical of the religious dogma of the day, Socrates and co. in particular, but religion was pretty culturally endemic in the day. Also, have you seen Joe Average Christian? None of the Protestants (dirty heretics) I know even go to church, much less are capable of quoting passages from the Bible, and it'd be beyond most to even give a clear explanation of what's in the Old Testament. Religion is something paid lip-service to by the enormous majority of people, a cultural artifact rather than the result of any genuine convictions. Compare that to the extreme religiosity of even three centuries ago (never mind a thousand years, when people'd think nothing of hearing someone talk about a witch cursing their crops or seeing a satyr in the woods or any of a thousand other crossovers from the supernatural to everyday life that today'd merit a long trip to the nice place with padded walls), and, well... guess it all matters what you define "religion" by. The name Jesus will probably still ring a bell in a hundred years, but that may well be it.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
Myths perpetuated by the faithful.
2) Without God there can be no morals
So if someone were to conclusively prove the bible false tomorrow (say by using a time machine and proving that Jesus didn't perform any miracles) would the religious immediately go out and murder their children and cheat on their wives? Well some of them probably would because it was only the fear of going to hell that was stopping them from acting like animals. But most of them have plugged in to the same morality that I have and wouldn't.
They may dress it up and say that they don't do those things because the bible says it is wrong but deep down even if the bible was proved false most people don't kill their children cause they love them, not cause they are scared of God or convinced by religious texts that it's wrong.
*comes out of lurking mode*
If I understand right, you're saying that God has no relation to morals because certain morals are innate in humans?
I think that most religious people would actually agree with this, but for different reasons. It is my belief, at least, that it is God who gave all people morals(including those who don't believe in Him). Not "acting like animals" out of fear of going to Hell would imply that one has their values in the wrong place, fear of divine punishment should not be the influence for one's actions.
Or perhaps I just misunderstood what you said :confused:
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Stupid thought of the day - is the internet a culture?
Yes it is, O great Alan.
-
Originally posted by Kazan
TrashMan: brain scans, behavior observation, etc
wormholes aren't accepted as a fact - it's just a theory
black holes are simple - it's a huge gravity well
the formulae to describe the behavior being complex doesn't mean the force is complex - the equasion describing gravity is com0plex by your definition im sure (rational polynomial function) but gravity is a simple force
Doesn't that prove what I said - complex and at the same time simple?
And brai scans and behavior observation prove NOTHING....:ick:
-
Originally posted by YodaSean
*comes out of lurking mode*
If I understand right, you're saying that God has no relation to morals because certain morals are innate in humans?
I think that most religious people would actually agree with this, but for different reasons. It is my belief, at least, that it is God who gave all people morals(including those who don't believe in Him). Not "acting like animals" out of fear of going to Hell would imply that one has their values in the wrong place, fear of divine punishment should not be the influence for one's actions.
Or perhaps I just misunderstood what you said :confused:
Nope. You pretty much nailed it. You may disagree with me on the reason why humans have morals (evolution vs God putting it in as an innate ability) but you're not argueing the outcome. You'll be suprised at the number of times I've heard christians claim that because atheists don't believe in God they must be immoral (or amoral). That because we don't have a book telling us what to do we can't have morals.
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
Stu: Um, you're probably reading wrong. Atheism tended to get you a death penalty in Greek civilization, so even were it imaginable to most of the philosophers they certainly wouldn't have gone about making a show of it. There were a few who were critical of the religious dogma of the day, Socrates and co. in particular, but religion was pretty culturally endemic in the day. Also, have you seen Joe Average Christian? None of the Protestants (dirty heretics) I know even go to church, much less are capable of quoting passages from the Bible, and it'd be beyond most to even give a clear explanation of what's in the Old Testament. Religion is something paid lip-service to by the enormous majority of people, a cultural artifact rather than the result of any genuine convictions. Compare that to the extreme religiosity of even three centuries ago (never mind a thousand years, when people'd think nothing of hearing someone talk about a witch cursing their crops or seeing a satyr in the woods or any of a thousand other crossovers from the supernatural to everyday life that today'd merit a long trip to the nice place with padded walls), and, well... guess it all matters what you define "religion" by. The name Jesus will probably still ring a bell in a hundred years, but that may well be it.
On the other hand, look at Joe Average Roman. Ever read Trimalchios Feast? They were pretty much exactly the same like yoour Joe Average Christian today, worse actually.
But to adress another point, I´m not sure deriving from logic and personal interests is as good as Mik wants to show. I mean, without religion, and irrationality, 90% of literature, art and music we have today wouldn´t exist. Sure, we had religious wars, the Spanish Inquisition and whatnot, but we also have the Cathedral of Notre-Dame, Mozart´s Requiem and whatnot.
A logical, rational human kind would be like walking computers. Just to an extent more advanced. And another thing, history has already proven to us, that a culture without some religion-based morals, without some "higher" principles to base the culture on, will eventually be self-destructive. You may see a world without god as an inevitabiltiy, I see it as a utopia.
There have been ´godless´ periods in the history of man kind. The late Roman Empire for example. Look what happened to them.
And Stryke, you may have noticed that I didn´t mention christian relgiion. I mentioned Islam, which is currently the fastest growing religion in the world, and is already close to matching Christianity in size. But unlike Christianity, you Average Joe Islamist follows his religion to the letter.
-
Originally posted by mikhael
I'm suddenly reminded of a story by Robert Sawyer, in which two alien species land on earth and demand to talk to a paleontologist. When told by a scientist that many people don't believe in God because there is no direct, credible proof, the aliens are incredulous. They tell him that of course God exists and there's obvious proof for anyone to see.
I´ll check them out. Assuming I can get them. Not a lot of SF is translated to estonian, and finding non-bestseller english books is next to impossible.
You should check out Stanislaw Lem´s "The Travels of Ijon Tichy". It has got a novella, in which the chief character meets a man who has created a matrix-like society. It provides some good insight into the nature of science vs. god.
-
Originally posted by Stunaep
But to adress another point, I´m not sure deriving from logic and personal interests is as good as Mik wants to show. I mean, without religion, and irrationality, 90% of literature, art and music we have today wouldn´t exist. Sure, we had religious wars, the Spanish Inquisition and whatnot, but we also have the Cathedral of Notre-Dame, Mozart´s Requiem and whatnot.
Um, Stu, I was talking about religion not being a prerequisite for morals. I was not arguing against religion. I'm really fond of religion.
A logical, rational human kind would be like walking computers. Just to an extent more advanced. And another thing, history has already proven to us, that a culture without some religion-based morals, without some "higher" principles to base the culture on, will eventually be self-destructive. You may see a world without god as an inevitabiltiy, I see it as a utopia.
You might be looking for the word 'dystopia', not 'utopia'. 'Utopia' is a good thing.
You talk about higher principles and that there are none without religion-based morals. This is ridiculous. I can name two "higher" principles without ever mentioning religion: the betterment of mankind and the pursuit of a deeper understanding of the universe. There is no need to appeal to religion to find the value and beauty of Man's works upon this world (nor to find the horrrors and ugliness we likewise have inflicted). One only has to look at something like the Great Wall of China, or the incredible beauty of Manhattan to see that Mankind can create incredible things without resorting to appealing to the supernatural. We've put men on the moon and sent probes to take photographs of parts of the universe we have yet to personally visit. If these achievements are somehow of lesser 'value' than your Notre Dame and your Requiem, I suggest, perhaps that you do not give enough credit to mankind.
There have been ´godless´ periods in the history of man kind. The late Roman Empire for example. Look what happened to them.
And Stryke, you may have noticed that I didn´t mention christian relgiion. I mentioned Islam, which is currently the fastest growing religion in the world, and is already close to matching Christianity in size. But unlike Christianity, you Average Joe Islamist follows his religion to the letter.
I would have to challenge you on both these points.
The Roman empire did not fall because they were godless. They fell because they were ridiculously large empire built on conquest. Given the logistical difficulties they faced--including the time/distance issues, and the ridiculous cost of maintaining the sort of armies required to secure an empire built on conquest--collapse was inevitable. You can only stack the floors of a building so high before it collapses under its own weight. Such an unwieldy empire did not have the infrastructure to survive. Fragmentation was inevitable. One, indeed, could argue that religion may have helped speed this fall. Instead of having a common religious faith to unite the people, religious differences helped the fragmentation process.
Second, I have to argue the idea the average muslim (Islamist is not an appropriate word as it implies a militant, politicised Islam, in modern parlance) is any more attentive to the fine details of his religion than the average Christian, Jew or Hindu. In all cultures, the truly orthodox have, historically, been in the minority, whilst the majority have been of more moderate observance.
-
The Roman empire fell becoause of numeorus reasons, of which the least of all was logistics... But that's beside the point of this topic....
Stu, you say you see a world without God as Utopia...Well, I'd hate to live in your Utopia...
Sadly, more and more people are becoming atheists, beliving only what science sez. Ironicly, they belive science can explain (and will explain) all. Too bad the scientist are allso humans, and that humanity has proven dumb...
-
Do I really have to point at the long post about chimps and morals to show Stunaep & Trashman that I've already pre-empted and answered their arguements? :rolleyes:
-
Trash, you believe that everything can be explained by a 2000 year old book, written and constantly revised under some very dubious circumstances.
Atheists do not believe everything can be explained by science. Some people just prefer to put their trust in something they can see or hold or othersie quantify than in an invisible dude in the sky. An invisible guy who wears sandals, for that matter.
To put it simply - this desk in front of me? My computer? Those things I beleive in. The sun, the moon, the stars? Those I believe in also. The invisible guy who tells you what to do? Forgive me if I think you're a bit odd for believing in him.
-
The thing which I want to emphasise, is that there is a huge difference between being religious and being spiritual.
Being religious means you follow a set of traditions, teaching, rituals and beliefs. Christianity, Islam, Judiasm and so forth.
Spirituality is the belief in "somthing else". Not founded on scientifc or logical grounds. Call is belief in the magical, he mysterious, whatever. Its faith, unburdened by codified laws. In some ways, I think that its more pure becuase it is not restrictive. This category is much broader than religion, because essentially a "person of faith" can pick and choose any elements of any religions or belief system that they so choose. They can also come up with new ones. Its personal, so who are you to interfere.
I think that humanity will move more towards the latter as time goes by. Much like the Reformation changed religion into a more personal affair, so it will be now and in the future. Of course, this is just my opinion, but we'll see how it turns out.
-
Actually, I've always considered spiritualism just a Politically Correct way of saying you believe in the Force ;)
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
Stu, you say you see a world without God as Utopia...Well, I'd hate to live in your Utopia...
When I said Utopia, I meant utopia as in 'something that could possibly be not achieved'
-
Originally posted by Flipside
Actually, I've always considered spiritualism just a Politically Correct way of saying you believe in the Force ;)
Bah. Hocus-pocus old religions are no match for a good blaster at your side.
-
Originally posted by mikhael
Um, Stu, I was talking about religion not being a prerequisite for morals. I was not arguing against religion. I'm really fond of religion.
Erm, sorry 'bout that. I guess it was someone else who mentioned wanting to live in a completely atheist world.
You might be looking for the word 'dystopia', not 'utopia'. 'Utopia' is a good thing.
You may well be right on that. Hey, I'm not native english.
You talk about higher principles and that there are none without religion-based morals. This is ridiculous. I can name two "higher" principles without ever mentioning religion: the betterment of mankind and the pursuit of a deeper understanding of the universe. There is no need to appeal to religion to find the value and beauty of Man's works upon this world (nor to find the horrrors and ugliness we likewise have inflicted). One only has to look at something like the Great Wall of China, or the incredible beauty of Manhattan to see that Mankind can create incredible things without resorting to appealing to the supernatural. We've put men on the moon and sent probes to take photographs of parts of the universe we have yet to personally visit. If these achievements are somehow of lesser 'value' than your Notre Dame and your Requiem, I suggest, perhaps that you do not give enough credit to mankind.
I would have to challenge you on both these points.
I'm not saying that morals not based on religion do not exist. I'm simply saying, that most of our morals *are* based on christianity. What christianity is based on is another matter entirely, it certainly doesn't propose anything original, but my point is that Religion is a focal point for morals, and has been throughout it's existence.
The Roman empire did not fall because they were godless. They fell because they were ridiculously large empire built on conquest. Given the logistical difficulties they faced--including the time/distance issues, and the ridiculous cost of maintaining the sort of armies required to secure an empire built on conquest--collapse was inevitable. You can only stack the floors of a building so high before it collapses under its own weight. Such an unwieldy empire did not have the infrastructure to survive. Fragmentation was inevitable. One, indeed, could argue that religion may have helped speed this fall. Instead of having a common religious faith to unite the people, religious differences helped the fragmentation process.
Frankly, I know how the Roman empire collapsed, but I simply didn't want to post another page just to explain it in detail. And yes, one could indeed argue on the religious point you mentioned, which is pretty close to what I intended to say.
Second, I have to argue the idea the average muslim (Islamist is not an appropriate word as it implies a militant, politicised Islam, in modern parlance) is any more attentive to the fine details of his religion than the average Christian, Jew or Hindu. In all cultures, the truly orthodox have, historically, been in the minority, whilst the majority have been of more moderate observance. [/B]
Now this is one point, where I can argue with you
I assume you know that many muslims (thanks, I again forgot the exact english term for it, thus the usage of Islamist, thank you for correcting me), to tell. Frankly, based on the footage I've seen from Afganistan, Iran, and other middle-eastern muslim countries, plus the muslim exchange students I happen to personally know, they follow the five princiiples of Islam to the letter. You go to a muslim country once, and you'll see how every single one of them prays to Allah five days a week, recognise no other god than allah, try to visit Meka at least once during their lifetime, and make donations. If these five are filled, their orthodox enough.
And a good majority do that. They do even more. They are by no means Stryke's Average Joe Christian, who is christian by name only.
-
Originally posted by diamondgeezer
Trash, you believe that everything can be explained by a 2000 year old book, written and constantly revised under some very dubious circumstances.
Atheists do not believe everything can be explained by science. Some people just prefer to put their trust in something they can see or hold or othersie quantify than in an invisible dude in the sky. An invisible guy who wears sandals, for that matter.
To put it simply - this desk in front of me? My computer? Those things I beleive in. The sun, the moon, the stars? Those I believe in also. The invisible guy who tells you what to do? Forgive me if I think you're a bit odd for believing in him.
You think I belive a 2000 year old book can explain everything? No... The Good Book only gives guidelines for a healthy and productive life...and a few wisdoms to boot...
I enjoy watching science programs and I read lot's of stuff about it... Those things facinate me and I do "belive" in science, but not that it can explain everything...
The answes to the most important questions are elswhere..namely by God..
And you imagine God like a dude in sandals???? And you call me odd????What a shallow mind you have!
-
That's strange, because I know Christians who claim they can answer everything I might ask. I try to explain that 'because God said so' isn't a satisfactory answer but they won't have it
Besides, am I not entitled to believe that God wears sandals if I want? If I take two Christians from random point of the globe, they will disagree on any number of aspects of the religion. There's nothing saying conclusively that God prefers Nike.
This is like the thing with the aliens again - you guys who talk to the invisible guy in the sky say I'm daft for believing in what I believe in. Step outside the box and evalutate that attitude for a mo
-
God doesn't wear sandals....he doesn't have a "body" in the normal sense of speaking to begin with...
-
God is above anything an idea. An idea of some bigger force watching over us. It doesn't matter if he exists or not, what matters is if we believe in him. Because if we don't, by the words of Dostoyevski "If God didn't exist, everything would be allowed".
So another view in the religon issue, is that it's not the existence of god that matters, it our belief in the existence of God.
-
Originally posted by Stunaep
God is above anything an idea. An idea of some bigger force watching over us. It doesn't matter if he exists or not, what matters is if we believe in him. Because if we don't, by the words of Dostoyevski "If God didn't exist, everything would be allowed".
What a load of rubbish. :rolleyes:
-
See what I mean? What, exactly, gives you the right to rubbish other peoples' beliefs?
-
He's not calling the believe rubbish. He's calling rubbish on "If God didn't exist, everything would be allowed." I pretty much already put paid to that concept. One doesn't need God to have morality, and if one has morality, everything is not allowed.
-
Ow, my head. It's too late at night for this
-
Originally posted by diamondgeezer
See what I mean? What, exactly, gives you the right to rubbish other peoples' beliefs?
I didn't say his belief was rubbish. Just his arguement.
I'd already pre-empted people claiming that morality came from God and answered the question. Stunaep just ignored my answer and kept posting the same nonsense which I'd already debunked. On top of that Mik also gave several good answers to the point and he's ignored them too.
If he want's to prove that his arguement isn't nonsense then he's free to answer giving a proper answer to mine and Mikhael's comments. What he can't do is simply stick his fingers in his ears and go "La La La I can't hear you." when someone posts an arguement he doesn't like.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
I didn't say his belief was rubbish. Just his arguement.
I'd already pre-empted people claiming that morality came from God and answered the question. Stunaep just ignored my answer and kept posting the same nonsense which I'd already debunked. On top of that Mik also gave several good answers to the point and he's ignored them too.
If he want's to prove that his arguement isn't nonsense then he's free to answer giving a proper answer to mine and Mikhael's comments. What he can't do is simply stick his fingers in his ears and go "La La La I can't hear you." when someone posts an arguement he doesn't like.
Right....
I haven't stuck my fingers in my ears. I just somehow managed to not notice your latest argument.
Here. Let's review your argument. I mean the argument, in which you actually make a point, as opposed to stating it over again, only two times longer.
wait, I don't have to do that. You've already proven my point! How kind of you!
So if someone were to conclusively prove the bible false tomorrow (say by using a time machine and proving that Jesus didn't perform any miracles) would the religious immediately go out and murder their children and cheat on their wives? Well some of them probably would because it was only the fear of going to hell that was stopping them from acting like animals. But most of them have plugged in to the same morality that I have and wouldn't.
They may dress it up and say that they don't do those things because the bible says it is wrong but deep down even if the bible was proved false most people don't kill their children cause they love them, not cause they are scared of God or convinced by religious texts that it's wrong.
Exactly.
You'd be surprised how big that number is.
You don't cheat on your wife, or murder your children. True. But you also come from a culture with a long christian heritage. I've proven several times, that religion has affected our morals, but you've decided to ignore those points.
Did you know that incest was perfectly normal in Ancient Egypt? Or that leaving your daughters to die was a common thing in Ancient Rome? Hell, while you may not cheat on your wife, the arabs have harems of wives. They also have a religion that allows it.
This has already invalidated the argument that our morals are based on some genetic instinct left over from the cavemen times.
If whoever made that argument (cant' find the post right now), wants more proof, then how 'bout this: Humans can think.
Now this may come as news to some of you, but it's true. Humans are the only species capable of overriding their natural instincts. And we have a tendency to be self-destructive.
Want proof? We all know that we are going to kill ourselves if we destroy the rainforests. We know that the consequences of the greenhouse effect are disastrous. But because we cannot see those consequences yet, we still keep cutting down forests by the thousands, and still keep pouring CO2 into the air.
So, if one day religion would go extint , there would be some who'd say that **** all of this, I can go and have twelve wives, kill my children, ass-**** my dad, and rob a bank.
100 years later, more would think, along the lines of 'what use is staying true to your wife anyway´. And so on, and so on. Until there is chaos.
God, as an idea of an all-seeing force is the best way to enforce our morals. The police can never do as much to enforce order as the belief in some sort of God can. Whether it be Jehova, Allah, or the Universe itself. If you know, that someone will always see, if what you do is right or wrong, you will never have the temptation, to do something wrong. And you know how suspectible people are to temptations.
You want proof, that people need god for a higher moral code?
That does not mean that I disrespect you. It simply means that I try to hold myself to the stricter standards set in the Bible, whereas you try to hold yourself to the looser standards set by the world. And, I freely admit, I'm not a stranger to failure in that regard.
Said by Sandwich.
So, long story short, I again quote Dostoyevski: "If there were no God, everything would be allowed"
-
Originally posted by Stunaep
You'd be surprised how big that number is.
You don't cheat on your wife, or murder your children. True. But you also come from a culture with a long christian heritage. I've proven several times, that religion has affected our morals, but you've decided to ignore those points.
Nope. I never argued with you that religion have affected our morals. Feel free to see if you can find somewhere that I stated something so obviously untrue.
I'm arguing with you over whether religion caused our morals and whether it is possible to have a moral society without religon. See the difference? As an atheist I don't believe that morals came from god because I don't believe in God in the first place. So it's obvious that morals must have come from somewhere else first and then been dressed up in religion.
As for how large the number would be I'm shocked at having to do this to you considering your profession but *Points to the law*
Even largely theocratic societies have had seperate laws and punishments. The reason why most people don't commit murder etc is not just because it's morally wrong but because you go to jail and get buggered for killing people. In fact I'd say laws actually have a larger effect on preventing random murders etc than morality does.
Originally posted by Stunaep
Did you know that incest was perfectly normal in Ancient Egypt? Or that leaving your daughters to die was a common thing in Ancient Rome? Hell, while you may not cheat on your wife, the arabs have harems of wives. They also have a religion that allows it.
This has already invalidated the argument that our morals are based on some genetic instinct left over from the cavemen times.
It doesn't in the slightest. All it proves is that society can alter those morals. It doesn't disprove what the original source was.
Originally posted by Stunaep
So, if one day religion would go extint , there would be some who'd say that **** all of this, I can go and have twelve wives, kill my children, ass-**** my dad, and rob a bank.
100 years later, more would think, along the lines of 'what use is staying true to your wife anyway´. And so on, and so on. Until there is chaos.
Only if you believe that someone would repeal all the laws in a godless society. I very much doubt that they would. Have a look at the communist countries as an example. Did they repeal all the laws against murder when they attempted to outlaw religion? Of course not. It would be chaos if they did.
Originally posted by Stunaep
God, as an idea of an all-seeing force is the best way to enforce our morals. The police can never do as much to enforce order as the belief in some sort of God can. Whether it be Jehova, Allah, or the Universe itself. If you know, that someone will always see, if what you do is right or wrong, you will never have the temptation, to do something wrong. And you know how suspectible people are to temptations.
If you believe that it's your choice. But next time someone cuts you up in traffic and flips you the bird consider for a second why you don't immediately run them off the road and beat them to death with a tyre iron. Is it cause you believe it's morally wrong or is it cause you don't want to go to jail. I'll bet the latter is the larger part of your reasoning process.
Originally posted by Stunaep
You want proof, that people need god for a higher moral code?
I never said there aren't people alive now who need God but what I deny is that we'll always need him. Sure a rapid transition to an atheistic society would be an upheaval but a long slow gradual change would work. The fact that there are atheists in the world and we don't go around murdering everyone proves that not everyone needs god.
-
Originally posted by Stunaep
Did you know that incest was perfectly normal in Ancient Egypt? Or that leaving your daughters to die was a common thing in Ancient Rome? Hell, while you may not cheat on your wife, the arabs have harems of wives. They also have a religion that allows it.
Well technically Christianity allow for it too. The proclamation that all forms of plural marriage were right out was made in the 10th century. It also had a sunset on that proclamation expired in a thousand years, on the basis that Jesus would be back before it expired to explain things. Muslims don't recognize the authority of the proclamation, so its still allowed for them.
A thousand years have passed, Jesus isn't back yet, and so Christians can, indeed, have plural marriages once again.
So, long story short, I again quote Dostoyevski: "If there were no God, everything would be allowed"
Buddha ain't a God and yet, for Buddhists, everything isn't allowed.
-
okay, so we don't go around murdering everyone. What about "Don't commit adultery" or "Respect your mother and your father" or other such tings.
As for the laws being the supressive force, those laws for the most derive from religion (as in the case of said incest thing, or monogamy and so on) not the other way around. Atheism is a rather new way of life, only some 500 years old. Not to mention general humane stuff, like "Love your neighbor like you love yourself", etc.
Oh yeah, I'm not also saying that our morals came from God. I don't believe in a white-bearded guy in sandals, so to speak, so IMO, they couldn't have come from god. I'm saying, that the idea of morality and the idea of religion are closely related, perhaps so closely that one couldn't exist without the other.
One could argue, that religion doesn't have to be based around god. If we take religion as blind faith to something greater than you, then we'd still find, that even if all the gods cease to exist, some form of religion remains. We do call mazdaism or taoism religions, despite neither of them having gods.
So, if one day, all of the gods were to die out, what would you base your morals on? Apparently, as you state on your previous posts, empathy. Respecting people, because you can see how they would feel if put in your position. Doing the humane thing.
This is usually called humanism around these parts of the world, in fact, what Mik is describing is basically the principles of modern humanism.
But they still rely on some form of irrational larger beliefs. Do what you want, feelings cannot be explained by science, and in extent, so can't be empathy. So, in this case your religion would be empathy. God=Empathy. It's just people have given it a name and a form.
But this requires an immense amount of brainpower, and willpower to actually get it right. Think of all the moral things, that the law doesn't enforce. And look how many people are willing to screw those. People cheat money out of people, using the laws as a back-up. People incite wars for their own profit, people **** with peoples husbands/wives. This is why we still need religion. And looking how long it took us to come from a society with gods to a society that is at least willing to accept the possible lack of a god, I doubt the godless day will come within the next 10000 years or so.
So, in short, I'm not saying a world without God is an impossibility. I'm just saying, it's not something that would be achieved overnight, and perhaps not even something to be strived for.
-
Originally posted by mikhael
Buddha ain't a God and yet, for Buddhists, everything isn't allowed.
And once again, read my post before that post. The one about God being an idea.
I've never been a religious person. For me, God doesn't exist. Yet I still recognise, that the morals aren't just some words some guy made up and wrote down in a book. I believe them to be something bigger, something resembling Plato's Idea. Something to be strived for. Unfortunately, not everyone can deal with that, which is why we, for at least now, need religion. For those who otherwise lack the passion or the willpower, or the need to be moral, still would do that.
And also, religion has in the past been the prime shaper of morals. Both you and Karajorma have admitted that. Why change that? As they say, if it works, don't fix it.
-
Originally posted by Stunaep
okay, so we don't go around murdering everyone. What about "Don't commit adultery" or "Respect your mother and your father" or other such tings.
Again. As stated I don't cheat on my girfriend cause I love her. I don't need any other reason. The same goes for respecting mum and dad.
Originally posted by Stunaep
As for the laws being the supressive force, those laws for the most derive from religion (as in the case of said incest thing, or monogamy and so on) not the other way around. Atheism is a rather new way of life, only some 500 years old. Not to mention general humane stuff, like "Love your neighbor like you love yourself", etc.
Actually atheism is older than religion. We mearly forgot it for a few hundred thousend years :D Unless you believe that the first human ancestor to be self aware also discovered religion it's pretty obvious that the religious point of view came about later :)
Originally posted by Stunaep
Oh yeah, I'm not also saying that our morals came from God. I don't believe in a white-bearded guy in sandals, so to speak, so IMO, they couldn't have come from god. I'm saying, that the idea of morality and the idea of religion are closely related, perhaps so closely that one couldn't exist without the other.
That arguement doesn't make sense though. If morals came from somewhere other than God it's obvious that they aren't that closely related. By following your logic you could claim that the big bang theory is also so closely related to God it can't be seperated because for many years everyone thought that the universe was created by God.
Originally posted by Stunaep
So, if one day, all of the gods were to die out, what would you base your morals on? Apparently, as you state on your previous posts, empathy. Respecting people, because you can see how they would feel if put in your position. Doing the humane thing.
This is usually called humanism around these parts of the world, in fact, what Mik is describing is basically the principles of modern humanism.
But they still rely on some form of irrational larger beliefs. Do what you want, feelings cannot be explained by science, and in extent, so can't be empathy. So, in this case your religion would be empathy. God=Empathy. It's just people have given it a name and a form.
Lets say that you're right. You're not but lets assume you are. Isn't that a step in the right direction at least? By getting rid of god and turning to what you call humanism at least you get rid of all the mystical mumbo-jumbo and are basing you morals on what society is like at the moment rather than what it was like 2000 years ago.
However you're wrong. God is not empathy for other humans. A lot of what religion teaches has nothing to do with empathy and more to do with religious leaders maintaining control.
Worse I'm not simply talking about basing morals on empathy alone. I agree with a lot of what mikhael said about application of game theory. I'd base my morals on simply trying to let everyone live their lives with as much ease as possible. And that can largely be distilled down by science.
Originally posted by Stunaep
But this requires an immense amount of brainpower, and willpower to actually get it right. Think of all the moral things, that the law doesn't enforce. And look how many people are willing to screw those. People cheat money out of people, using the laws as a back-up. People incite wars for their own profit, people **** with peoples husbands/wives. This is why we still need religion. And looking how long it took us to come from a society with gods to a society that is at least willing to accept the possible lack of a god, I doubt the godless day will come within the next 10000 years or so.
So, in short, I'm not saying a world without God is an impossibility. I'm just saying, it's not something that would be achieved overnight, and perhaps not even something to be strived for.
And religion works? I don't actually feel it has as much of an effect as you ascribe to it. Sure there are lots of people who don't get up and commit random violence because of it but there are lots who who commit murder not in spite of religion but because of it. Lets not forget the wave of low grade evil spread by politicians in the name of religion. You give examples of people doing things like inciting wars for profit. Want to deny that those same people often believe in God and do it anyway?
I feel that at worst we'll have traded religious immorality for atheistic immorality. And again that's a step in the right direction cause at least I don't have to listen to fairy stories about why someone wants to do something immoral.
Getting rid of God won't stop people doing ****ty things. I'm not claiming it would but religion doesn't hold back the floodgates half as much as you seem to believe it does.
Originally posted by Stunaep
And also, religion has in the past been the prime shaper of morals. Both you and Karajorma have admitted that. Why change that? As they say, if it works, don't fix it.
But it doesn't work. What it did was allow a framework of laws and morals to be thrown up. We have those. The scaffolding can come down now.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
Lets say that you're right. You're not but lets assume you are. Isn't that a step in the right direction at least? By getting rid of god and turning to what you call humanism at least you get rid of all the mystical mumbo-jumbo and are basing you morals on what society is like at the moment rather than what it was like 2000 years ago.
And if we based our morals on what society is like today, we'd make it okay to drink since the age of 7, **** anything that moves and has something with a vague resemblance of a hole, etc.
If anything, the morals should be based on an ideal. And that ideal has remained pretty much the same within the 2000 years. And it's not like the christian doctrines haven't been revised during that time.
However you're wrong. God is not empathy for other humans. A lot of what religion teaches has nothing to do with empathy and more to do with religious leaders maintaining control.
Worse I'm not simply talking about basing morals on empathy alone. I agree with a lot of what mikhael said about application of game theory. I'd base my morals on simply trying to let everyone live their lives with as much ease as possible. And that can largely be distilled down by science.
Actually, my point here was describing, how God is not only a white bearded man with sandals. For you, empathy is God. God is this ultimate larger than life creature that you base your actions on. Once you start basing your actions on yourself, you'll inevitably fall into self-destruction. Which is why we need a god, at least for the time being.
And religion works? I don't actually feel it has as much of an effect as you ascribe to it. Sure there are lots of people who don't get up and commit random violence because of it but there are lots who who commit murder not in spite of religion but because of it. Lets not forget the wave of low grade evil spread by politicians in the name of religion. You give examples of people doing things like inciting wars for profit. Want to deny that those same people often believe in God and do it anyway?
I feel that at worst we'll have traded religious immorality for atheistic immorality. And again that's a step in the right direction cause at least I don't have to listen to fairy stories about why someone wants to do something immoral.
Getting rid of God won't stop people doing ****ty things. I'm not claiming it would but religion doesn't hold back the floodgates half as much as you seem to believe it does.
So, people with religion do ****ty things, and people without it do ****ty things. So why bother at all? Let those who need religion have it, and those who don't won´t. And believe me, there will always be those who need it. At least in the scope of the next millennia or so.
[/quote]
But it doesn't work. What it did was allow a framework of laws and morals to be thrown up. We have those. The scaffolding can come down now. [/quote]
Which brings me back to the point I've stated several times. I don't we can yet. I mean, humanity has finally reached a point, where we are no longer holding religious wars, or at least not on the scale of 1000 years ago. But most people aren't ready yet for a world without religion. I feel it would release the floodgates you consider non-existant. But I guess we'll never know, since there ain't a chance of God going away any time soon.
-
bunch of atheïsts, someday the destroyers will come for all of you!!~1!@!~
erm, I err....
-
Originally posted by Stunaep
And if we based our morals on what society is like today, we'd make it okay to drink since the age of 7, **** anything that moves and has something with a vague resemblance of a hole, etc.
What's wrong with that?
-
Originally posted by Stunaep
And if we based our morals on what society is like today, we'd make it okay to drink since the age of 7, **** anything that moves and has something with a vague resemblance of a hole, etc.
Are you deliberately misunderstanding me or something? I mean not basing morality of stupid assumptions from 2000 years ago like Homosexuality = evil or stem cell research = evil. Crap like that. Not everything that people do these days is correct. :rolleyes:
Originally posted by Stunaep
Actually, my point here was describing, how God is not only a white bearded man with sandals. For you, empathy is God. God is this ultimate larger than life creature that you base your actions on. Once you start basing your actions on yourself, you'll inevitably fall into self-destruction. Which is why we need a god, at least for the time being.
How nice of you to try to define my entire world view in one sentence. Pity you got it so completely wrong. I'd already stated that game theory is a major part of it and you've completely missed it.
Let me give you an analogy. Take your computer. It has finite resources. Every program wants to grab as much of them as it can so it can run at full speed. However you can't run the system like that. The only way that a computer works properly is if all the processes share the CPU with no one task attempting to grab more of the run time than it needs.
Now. The world also has finite resources.... I'm sure you can figure out the rest for yourself. It all follows pretty logically from there. No mysticism involved.
Try reading up on Game theory and especially Axelrod's (sp) prisoners dilema experiments. It's scientifically proven that the most viable theory for sharing any resource with any large number of other creatures is simple tit-for-tat.
I mentioned empathy because you need it to make sure tit-for-tat works.
Originally posted by Stunaep
So, people with religion do ****ty things, and people without it do ****ty things. So why bother at all? Let those who need religion have it, and those who don't won´t. And believe me, there will always be those who need it. At least in the scope of the next millennia or so.
I never once mentioned the ratio in which they do ****ty things. I happen to believe that without religion the ratio would be lower. Maybe that's because I tend to see ****ty things being done more often by people who are recognisably religious than atheists.
Originally posted by Stunaep
Which brings me back to the point I've stated several times. I don't we can yet. I mean, humanity has finally reached a point, where we are no longer holding religious wars, or at least not on the scale of 1000 years ago. But most people aren't ready yet for a world without religion. I feel it would release the floodgates you consider non-existant. But I guess we'll never know, since there ain't a chance of God going away any time soon.
That's your belief then fine. You're welcome to believe it. I don't simple as that. I don't consider the floodgates non-existant. I simply believe that the effect of religion is a greater force for evil in the world than the effect of its abscence would be.
-
There is proof all around us that God exists....There are just people who are too blind to see it....
Ancient writing from Egypt and Rome confirm the Flood/Locust/Plage, etc... that happened during the time Abraham was there and the incredibly strange events that happend after Christ Died...
The both hated Cristinas...so why would they ever write something like that if it wasn't the truth...
Allso, look at all the monotheistic religions today...they are 99% the same (the 1% difference is man's product)..The same God?
And the greatest proof that there is a God is in science itself..
The vastness of the universe, it's complexity, the subatomic chaotic nature, yet perfectly ordered on a large scale...
The complex machines that are our bodies, the circle of life, the incredible adaptibility of nature, it's beauty..
And the fact that a large part of it can be understood by scientific methods and our own pitifull minds...
All is just too well ordered to be a product of pure chance...it's clearly a product of a mind greater than we can ever imagine..
and there's allways the question of the beginning of the universe...Science can't explain it...Logic can't explain it...Only the existance of God explains it...
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
There is proof all around us that God exists....There are just people who are too blind to see it....
Ancient writing from Egypt and Rome confirm the Flood/Locust/Plage, etc... that happened during the time Abraham was there and the incredibly strange events that happend after Christ Died....
How do you know that these events were not just simply interpreted as miracles or divine intervention, then placed in the Bible as a result?
Even if something does happen, and it is ascribed to God, does not mean it was actually cause by (a) God.
i mean, the Great Flood was suppossed to have wiped out all life on Earth, yes? But was China affected? Or europe?
-
I still say that the Black Sea theory is the single flood explanation that makes the most sense.
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
And the greatest proof that there is a God is in science itself..
The vastness of the universe, it's complexity, the subatomic chaotic nature, yet perfectly ordered on a large scale...
The complex machines that are our bodies, the circle of life, the incredible adaptibility of nature, it's beauty..
And the fact that a large part of it can be understood by scientific methods and our own pitifull minds...
All is just too well ordered to be a product of pure chance...it's clearly a product of a mind greater than we can ever imagine..
and there's allways the question of the beginning of the universe...Science can't explain it...Logic can't explain it...Only the existance of God explains it...
Your gross misunderstanding of the nature of the universe is insulting. You are barred--BARRED--from discussing science again until you have a basic understanding of cosmology, the anthropic principle, chaos theory and numerical combinatorics.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
How do you know that these events were not just simply interpreted as miracles or divine intervention, then placed in the Bible as a result?
Even if something does happen, and it is ascribed to God, does not mean it was actually cause by (a) God.
i mean, the Great Flood was suppossed to have wiped out all life on Earth, yes? But was China affected? Or europe?
A while ago (maybe a year) a saw a program on TLC (The Learning Channel, sort of like Discovery but more interesting) that actually went through the 10 Plagues visited on Egypt and tried to find a scientific explaination for them all, taking into consideration the time at which they allegedly took place. And I must say, it did a pretty good job.
-
Does anyone here actually believe that there are 6 billion people on this planet because of 8 persons that were on "the arc"? How could there be enough genetic variability considering they were a family?!?!?
-
Originally posted by Ghostavo
Does anyone here actually believe that there are 6 billion people on this planet because of 8 persons that were on "the arc"? How could there be enough genetic variability considering they were a family?!?!?
Not to mention that we are supposedly all decended from two people, adam and eve. That would mean that for any particular point on the genome there could only be 4 possible genes.
-
Which is why, assuming you're intelligent and religious, you tend to ignore the entire Book of Genesis.
-
though humans do have some of the least diverse gene pools of all animals, there is more diversity in a litter of pupies than the entier human race, it's beleved that at some point in our not to distant past the human race was down to about 10,000
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
though humans do have some of the least diverse gene pools of all animals, there is more diversity in a litter of pupies than the entier human race, it's beleved that at some point in our not to distant past the human race was down to about 10,000
Does the Ice Age count?
-
Originally posted by karajorma
Not to mention that we are supposedly all decended from two people, adam and eve. That would mean that for any particular point on the genome there could only be 4 possible genes.
Unless evolution occured:p
-
Originally posted by Mr. Vega
Unless evolution occured:p
:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
How do you know that these events were not just simply interpreted as miracles or divine intervention, then placed in the Bible as a result?
Even if something does happen, and it is ascribed to God, does not mean it was actually cause by (a) God.
I mean, the Great Flood was suppossed to have wiped out all life on Earth, yes? But was China affected? Or europe?
Tsk, tsk...
Use your brain! The Old Testament is written simoblicly. You have to put yourself in the position of a man from that age. They didn't know much of the world (I bet 99% of them never left the country). To them their country WAS the world. There was a "Great Flood" that covered the whole region where Israel/Palestina now are ....
@mikhael - LOL...I have knowledge of that things...I love science...The question is...are YOU lacking the understanding of the nature of the universe?
Adam and Eve...it's allso symbolical... It probably represents the first people groups (like nations...thousands of individuals)
And the fact that most "wonders" can be explain...God created the universe...thus, he created everything in it (floods, winds..etc..). ..What's so surprising about him causing things like storms by using nature itself (so it looks like it ain't nothing special...alltough it is... In the case of the Great Sea, the winds conditions that have caused the sea to "split" are so extreeme that they statisticly appear every 750(or something) years...talk about timing..).
I mean, he IS God...you really don't expect him to leave his fingerprints behind?
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
... ... ...
what
I mean... Uhh... Eeerr.. what.
Please, in your previous comment you said that there's PROOF "all around us" that god exists. Now you back off and say that proof does not exist, because God does not want us to see it. (Why would he do something like that boggles my mind.)
I want to see this proof.
:(
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
Tsk, tsk...
Use your brain! The Old Testament is written simoblicly. You have to put yourself in the position of a man from that age. They didn't know much of the world (I bet 99% of them never left the country). To them their country WAS the world. There was a "Great Flood" that covered the whole region where Israel/Palestina now are ....
So God didn't cause a great flood to wipe out life on Earth and start a new age, then?
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
though humans do have some of the least diverse gene pools of all animals, there is more diversity in a litter of pupies than the entier human race, it's beleved that at some point in our not to distant past the human race was down to about 10,000
Yep. The Toba Supervolcano. Damn near wiped humanity out completely.
Click me (http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/1999/supervolcanoes.shtml)
Originally posted by Mr. Vega
Unless evolution occured:p
At least one person appreciates the basic irony involved in the fact that people who believe the bible is 100% true can only explain the genetic diversity of human beings by using evolution :D
Originally posted by TrashMan
Adam and Eve...it's allso symbolical... It probably represents the first people groups (like nations...thousands of individuals)
Ahhh. So you're one of those christians. The "What I think God meant to say" kind. The problem I have with them is how can we take anything you say seriously? If you say that your own religions holy book is incorrect or symbolic in places how can you state that anything in it is the word of God?
In fact since you already believe that God is perfectly happy to lie to his own followers how can you be certain that the entire bible isn't as test of faith and the only way to pass it is to renounce the stupid parts of it (Like laws banning homosexuality or bits saying that women who are raped really wanted it) completely?
-
The way I see it, the account of Adam, Eve, and their sons, Cain and Abel, is too specific to be referring to people groups, what with the geneologies and all. Although it certainly doesn't make sense that they were the only humans on earth at the time, since Cain took a wife from somewhere. Perhaps God created Adam and Eve first, but then created others, about whom we are not told.
Or maybe they are representing people groups. Who knows? I certainly don't.
-
Urgh. There's something so inherently wrong in picking and choosing what you want in a religion.
Stu is basically right that the vast majority of people aren't mature enough to accept a worldview more nuanced or complex than "Big leader say this true, big leader say do that". There are a couple cases on this board where such is painfully obvious, and at risk of sounding snobbish I'll put forward that those literate (and computer literate) enough to access this board are probably disproportionately capable of abstract thought. It seems highly unlikely that were everybody in the world suddenly to understand the vast improbability of God's existence everyone would instantly set out a-murderin', but then it's almost inconcievable that they'd accept that, or that there wouldn't be a proxy for similar levels of blind faith ("Scientists say this true..."). People in general don't like to think about most things too deeply- probably given sufficient examination the same applies to everybody- they just want to accept what they're told and get on with their lives.
Trashman, in any other age you'd get burned at the stake far faster than any atheist, and I think I can see why. Reinterpreting faith to suit personal interests is wrong. The idea is that God creates you, not that you invent God.
Kara, in reference to the "evolution" bit- not quite. It's all apocryphal and generally is only really a standard of the nastier racists, but there are supposedly Biblical explanations for the diversity of mankind. Black people, for example, are supposed to be the descendants of Ham, after he was "marked" for seeing his father drunk off his ass and buck naked (which is really yet another case of God picking on the wrong guy... but then again, it's pretty established that he played favorites with the likes of Noah). I won't repeat the reasons that's the purported Biblical source of blacks, for reasons that'll be pretty clear to anybody who knows the passage, but that's a starter. I'm also reasonably sure there was an interpretation of the Bible that accounted for American Indians, though I'm not so sure about the other races. Probably the results of some other curse, I'm guessing, knowing the interpreters. :D
-
Sandwich, I think it says in the bible that lilith (sp?) was a demon!! :D (seriously)
-
There's no reference to Lilith in the Bible at all. Or demons in the Christian sense, for that matter. Biblical Satan is still God's right-hand man and the snake's just a jerk. I think there's one case of demonic possession in the New Testament, but they're Jewish demons, basically wandering malevolent spirits having a hoe-down in some poor bastard's head, rather than rebel angels working in a coordinated plan to bring down God and assume power in Heaven which seems to mostly involve being obnoxious to humanity. Lilith's origins are in texts that were either excised from the Bible or just were created at about the same time and refer to something that sounds like Adam's story (I don't know the specifics), and the whole devil bit was made up by the early Christians so they could have a really good bad guy that wasn't nasty, sinful, intolerant people and hence a few centuries later be free to be nasty, sinful, and intolerant themselves.
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
Kara, in reference to the "evolution" bit- not quite. It's all apocryphal and generally is only really a standard of the nastier racists, but there are supposedly Biblical explanations for the diversity of mankind. Black people, for example, are supposed to be the descendants of Ham, after he was "marked" for seeing his father drunk off his ass and buck naked (which is really yet another case of God picking on the wrong guy... but then again, it's pretty established that he played favorites with the likes of Noah). I won't repeat the reasons that's the purported Biblical source of blacks, for reasons that'll be pretty clear to anybody who knows the passage, but that's a starter. I'm also reasonably sure there was an interpretation of the Bible that accounted for American Indians, though I'm not so sure about the other races. Probably the results of some other curse, I'm guessing, knowing the interpreters. :D
Fair enough. I tend to try to avoid the warped thinking of anyone who would claim stuff like that so I didn't know that.
-
Ooh, there's no shortage of warped thinking when it comes to religion. Remember, we're talking about the thing used to justify basically every atrocity in history you can name.
-
My mind boggles at this.
-
arez yousz stillz bichizng sbouzt religion, you guyz really needz to be gittezing a l oife becues at thisz trate you bee all gozing to khell.
-
Yep. Actucally, I've been promised an internship there. I see you're logged for the circle used to punish immoderation. I guess stupidity isn't a deadly sin yet. Have to ask the big man about that.
-
(http://hellfish.org/~kosminen/Wowzers/wowzers.gif)
-
according to www.churchofsatan.com stupidity iz the nyumber one szin , andnd hthere forfe i muzst die
-
Originally posted by Janos
(http://hellfish.org/~kosminen/Wowzers/wowzers.gif)
if thazt waz what religion uz aboutz, id converzt in a secondz
-
An alizée fan. How scary :p
-
"Scavengers are set up to cleanse the human filth parade"?
:( No we need more Alizee.
(http://hellfish.org/~kosminen/Wowzers/alizee_shake.gif)
If you aren't a fan of nice ass, you're ___ :p
-
double post :doubt:
-
She might have a nice ass, pb is, not only she waves it, but she sings with it too :p
-
i am pure, i am true i am all over you, i am laugh i am smile, i am the earth defilred, i am the cosmic storm, i am the tiny wormz, i am feare in the night, i am bringer of light
dimmu borgir ruelez and i congradulatez you fore nowinge themz
-
@Janos - there is proof all around, most people just don't perceve it as proof...God created the physical laws of the universe and He uses them to achive wonders (Why he uses them? Don't know...) such as storms, meteor showers, winds, locust swarms, pluges... Most people see them merely as conincendance, not as God's doing, but If you look at it, there are too many coincedances...
@Kajorama & Stryke 9 - I'm not re-inventing faith. You again forget the age of the Bible (even before it was writen) and the simple people that lived there. Like I said, the Old Testament is full of symbolims, but you still can't reinterpret it however you want. There are rules (common sense, science) and guidelines (New Testament)
-
Simple people? Like the Egyptians, for example? Or the Romans?
Do I detecet a slightly romanticised vision of Biblical times?
-
My thread derail attempt failed.
Trashman. Seriously. Just stating something as "proof", without giving any further explanation, does not really give credibility to whatever you call proof.
So you say that physical laws are a proof of God's existance? Fine then. In other terms you state that God created laws of physics in his unmeasurable genious. This way you actually state that you believe there is somekind of driving force beyond the laws of nature, which is OK. That kind of Christianity I can live with, but the fact is that no proof stand for this fact. Vague faith does not count as proof.
Then you proceed to contradict yourself. You state that Bible is to be taken metaphorically, but in the same time declare that winds, plagues and swarms of locust are a fact and should be taken as evidence. This sentence also boggles my mind and may cause me to gauge my eyeballs out with a spoon:
@Kajorama & Stryke 9 - I'm not re-inventing faith. You again forget the age of the Bible (even before it was writen) and the simple people that lived there. Like I said, the Old Testament is full of symbolims, but you still can't reinterpret it however you want. There are rules (common sense, science) and guidelines (New Testament)
.
A book full of symbolism loses it's credibility in even most down-to-earth basics of it: if you say that it's full of symbolism, then how can you define some things as symbolism and some things as not? This requires historical and scientific proof, which you have failed to present.
As for the New Testament, it's basics lay in moral message: be kind, don't crucify random people and so on. But since morality and ethics are context dependant, even simpler facts of NT can become obsolete or twisted as time goes by.
But my rant mode is boring, I will now post random image which has nothing to do with the discussion.
(http://www.imageshack.us/files1/PARTYHARDEST.gif)
-
catgirl?
Heh, that could work :p
-
Trashman: And there's several thousand years of oral history and interpretation that say the Biblical characters are not meant to be metaphors for something, and the bearers of them would not take kindly to your suggestion. That one book is not all there is to go on, you know, and everything's pretty explicit on that account.
Janos, that's disturbing. In keeping with the Biblical theme we seem to have going here, I'm going to recommend you be stoned to death if you do not remove it.
-
The point is that you are taking religion too seriously imho.
It has been (and sometimes still is) a good education method.
After all, you cannot teach scentific theories to most people, as they wouldn't be understood...
Religion has always been a great way to cover the holes in the knowledge, and in many cases also a good veichle to teach morals.
Now, i don't have anything against religions (i don't believe, but i let the others do, my vision of the world is near of kazan's one), but in most cases i despise how organized religions work...
I guess that the human factor does not take logic into account... But on the other side, if we were perfectly logical history would have been really much different...
Everyone is free to believe in what he wants, just keep the zealots far from me...
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
@Kajorama & Stryke 9 - I'm not re-inventing faith. You again forget the age of the Bible (even before it was writen) and the simple people that lived there. Like I said, the Old Testament is full of symbolims, but you still can't reinterpret it however you want. There are rules (common sense, science) and guidelines (New Testament)
But who gets to choose what is symbolic and what is real? You? Your family? Your priest? The Pope? What if you disagree?
@Zarax. It's all well and good to say that religion is just a learning tool for the uneducated/stupid but if that is all it is and it is holding back people who want to learn the truth (e.g preventing teaching of evolution in schools) or holding back humanity in general (preventing research into stem cells) then maybe it's time to find a new tool.
-
That is zealotry Karajorma, something i really despise.
The problem is that you can't just remove religion... You have to find a replacement to it...
-
Nope it's not zealotry. I'm fine with people having their own beliefs. I wouldn't force anyone to believe or not believe in anything. But if you're saying that the only point in having religion is as a tool then there is a big flaw in your arguement which I felt needed pointing out.
Did you not notice the large number of conditionals in my reply? :)
-
Yes, i did but my english sometimes does not help with my short answers...
What i meant is that using religion to prevent the spreading of facts that may be in contrast with their thesys (preventing teaching of evolution like you said is a good example).
I don't think that religion is only a tool, but i tend to simplify most things, so that i may have given that idea...
Religion is something that feels "spiritual needs" as well as being an important social factor and often motivation to people imho...
Again, this is a simplified view, but it resumes my personal one pretty well...
-
But religion, organised religion, also produces the likes of Liberator who 'pities' homosexuals. Double-edged sword
-
That's prejudice more than religion...
-
Ask him where his prejudice stems from. Ask him how he justifies it. If you ignore the dodgy 'science' he quotes, all you're left with is his interpretation of the Bible's laws
-
Ask who DG?
-
Not to mention it's a prejudice that is actively supported by many churches - look at the furore whenever a gay bishop or whatnot is appointed (or attempted to be)
-
@Diamondgeezer - The Bible was carrier on for generation to generation for decades verbally BEFORE it was written down...
@Janos - Like I sad...there is proof...You don't see it as proof, I do..There's nothing further to explain...
And PARTS of the Bible are to be takes simbolycly...(Like Noah and the flood), some are blown up (Like when it say's Abraham and his people wandered the desert for 40 years...You don't really belive it was 40?...Fisher's tale)
I don't contradict myself..You merely see contradiction everywhere..
There exists much historical proof whith which one can analyze the Old Testament...And common sense allso helps, since there are parts that are CLEARLY symbolical...
The New Testament was written allmost directly, so to re-interpret it would be kinda hard...and besides, it's lot more straight-forward than the Old Testament..
@Stryke 9 - you misunderstood... If you think that EVERY Biblical charachter stands for something else then I pitty you....
The thing I said was referenced ONLY to the Adam&Eve story
@Kajorama - what's symbolic..If you really can't filter that out, why the hell am I even talking to you?
- I don't like gays....I don't hate tehm..I just don't like them...I don't want to like them...I don't need to liek them...
-
bill gate's :blah: :D
i'd rather chose him for right now!
-
f'n double post
-
Don't let Kazan know it or he will burn you as heretic :lol:
-
there's no "all powerful being" except BG.
-
:lol: Not even I dare to say that... Lol, if BG is God then i'm a priest of his cult... Come on my children, let me enlighted you :lol:
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
There's no reference to Lilith in the Bible at all. Or demons in the Christian sense, for that matter. Biblical Satan is still God's right-hand man and the snake's just a jerk. I think there's one case of demonic possession in the New Testament, but they're Jewish demons, basically wandering malevolent spirits having a hoe-down in some poor bastard's head, rather than rebel angels working in a coordinated plan to bring down God and assume power in Heaven which seems to mostly involve being obnoxious to humanity. Lilith's origins are in texts that were either excised from the Bible or just were created at about the same time and refer to something that sounds like Adam's story (I don't know the specifics), and the whole devil bit was made up by the early Christians so they could have a really good bad guy that wasn't nasty, sinful, intolerant people and hence a few centuries later be free to be nasty, sinful, and intolerant themselves.
The whole devil concept was stolen from the Zoroastrians, actually, who believed in two gods (one good, one evil). Cultural diffusion.
Also, the origin of Lilith is in an attempt to explain a bit of a contradiction in Genesis.
Genesis 1:27: "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."
Genesis 2:22: "And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man."
This led to a rather disturbing little book called "The Life of Adam and Eve". It's one of the apocryphal books. Haven't actually read it, but from what I've heard, it's rather messed up.
-
what have you heard?
-
It's a rather odd apocryphal book, that blames he pain of childbirth on Eve being fooled by the devil again and the like.
Also, I wrote the wrong apocryphal book. The story of Lilith is from the "Alphabet of Ben Sira", and states that Lilith was exiled from Eden for not lying on the bottom during sex.
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
The way I see it, the account of Adam, Eve, and their sons, Cain and Abel, is too specific to be referring to people groups, what with the geneologies and all. Although it certainly doesn't make sense that they were the only humans on earth at the time, since Cain took a wife from somewhere.
That's a good question, Cain's wife was taken from the land of Nod, Nod meaning "wanderer."
If Adam and Eve are the only two human beings, then who... no what are the wanderers? :nervous:
-
Homosexual Robots :drevil:
-
:ick:
-
(http://www.penny-arcade.com/images/2003/20030611l.gif)
-
:wtf:
-
"You wouldn't get it."
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
@Kajorama - what's symbolic..If you really can't filter that out, why the hell am I even talking to you?
Okay. Story of Job. Is that symbolic? No real unexplainable supernaturalness in that story but is that symbolic? Cause God comes off as a bit of a bastard in that one.
Jonah and the whale (or whale shark if you're one of those idiots who takes ever single word in the bible and the absolute truth :D ). Is that symbollic? Seems unlikely someone could be swallowed and not digested.
The bits where the same god of infinite love gave laws that women who are raped and didn't cry out really liked it and should be stoned to death. Is that symbolic? The bit about owning slaves? The 10 plagues of egypt. Are they all fake?
Jesus. Is that symbolic? The whole crucifiction and rebirth thing not to mention the assention to heaven is just as fantastical as the adam and eve story which you say is symbolic. Is that all false?
I'm trying to get my head round what you think is symbolic cause frankly I think the entire thing is made up. Not a single bit of it makes any logical sense so expecting me to say this fairy story is true while this fairy story is obviously false is a little hard for me to do.
Originally posted by Grey Wolf 2009
Also, I wrote the wrong apocryphal book. The story of Lilith is from the "Alphabet of Ben Sira", and states that Lilith was exiled from Eden for not lying on the bottom during sex.
You're kidding me. :D
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
@Diamondgeezer - The Bible was carrier on for generation to generation for decades verbally BEFORE it was written down...
Yes, we all know that. But can you tell me with a straight face that a collection of oral stories can be retold over several decades (if not centuries) and stay exactly the same?
You're quite right of course Kara. Annoys the hell out of me when Christians will pick and choose which bits of the Bible are true and which are 'true'. I mean a few hundred years ago the whole lot was absolute truth, and you'd be burned for suggesting maybe some of it was symbolic. Now we have the majority of worshipers saying the whole seven day malarky is symbolic of the formation of the solar system as best described by modern science.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
________________
Originally posted by Grey Wolf 2009
Also, I wrote the wrong apocryphal book. The story of Lilith is from the "Alphabet of Ben Sira", and states that Lilith was exiled from Eden for not lying on the bottom during sex.
________________
You're kidding me. :D
Sadly, I'm not. It's just one example of how the apocryphal books have even more problems than books such as Genesis and Revelations, the oddest of the canon books.
-
I had a look on the encyclopedia mythica after reading your comment and it is true :D
Although it was more due to a kind of militant proto-feminism rather than simply prefering a different position in bed :)
-
Originally posted by diamondgeezer
Yes, we all know that. But can you tell me with a straight face that a collection of oral stories can be retold over several decades (if not centuries) and stay exactly the same?
[color]
That's exaclty my point!!!
The Old Testament must not be taken for granted, for some people trough which the story passed most certanly put in something of their own! That's why there are some inconsistancies and I bet that's why Christ came...to set the record straight...
@Kajorama - What is symbolic? Mostly that what science, logic andd history say couldn't have happened.....
And what I wrote above allso explains the brutal laws (like the rape thing). Those psycho priests had so much power in those days....
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
That's exaclty my point!!!
The Old Testament must not be taken for granted, for some people trough which the story passed most certanly put in something of their own! That's why there are some inconsistancies and I bet that's why Christ came...to set the record straight...
@Kajorama - What is symbolic? Mostly that what science, logic andd history say couldn't have happened.....
And what I wrote above allso explains the brutal laws (like the rape thing). Those psycho priests had so much power in those days....
Can you see my problem with that statement? You're basically saying that a load of the stuff in the Old Testement was made up by the priests of the time.
Your then saying that although the priesthood was no weaker in later times that the New Testement is completely unchanged and 100% believeable. Does the thought not occur to you that the psycho priests did to the NT what you say they did to the OT?
Besides IIRC Jesus did say that he wasn't there to correct the Old Testement, mearly to add to it.
-
So, basically, take the Bible, remove all those nasty improbable bits like the miracles and the holy men and the stuff that makes the Old Testament in any way significant or relevant to any faith at all, and there you have it- the way it should be.
Oh, and for good measure, make God a fat guy in a dirty robe who just happens to be a bit smarter than everybody else. He was a resident of the city of "Adam" and died at age 65-any references to the guy after that are the results of heatstroke or undercooked camel meat. Or they're symbolic of, um, beans. Yeah, beans. I mean, all those millions of people were way off base with that silly "al-powerful creator of the Universe" garbage, there's no evidence of that at all. Really, I don't know what they were thinking.
-
The Old TEstament was passed on verbally for hundereds of years before it was written down, and even then it passed trough kazillion priests....
The New Testament was written practicly imediately and a large part was written by the apostols themselves and materials from the new Testament were guarded durin the Roman persecutions. It is therefeore far more belivable then the Old Testament, Kuran or other similar books...
Even then, priest still tended to interpret things according to their own needs (Inquisition), alltough the text remained the same....
...You know what...this is starting to really bore me...I know what I know, you belive what you want...see if I care...
SIGNING OFF....
-
Ha ha, we proved you wrong :D
OK, so we've got Lib and Trash to stand down... who's next?
-
Don't be a dick, DG. That's an0n, Kaz and ZB's jobs.
Let him concede defeat gracefully.
-
Oh come on, I've been working with barely a break all week. Let me blow off a little steam, FFS
-
What, I don't get to be a dick?
Maybe I'm not trying hard enough.
-
Originally posted by mikhael
Let him concede defeat gracefully.
Except that that wasn't a graceful defeat. That was a "Oh No. I may have been wrong all my life so I'm going to run away before someone proves me wrong." :)
Why else make a post refuting what I've said and THEN go away :) Trashman knows he's going to get called on his assertions about the gospels but he wanted the last word.
Originally posted by Stryke 9
What, I don't get to be a dick?
Maybe I'm not trying hard enough.
More noise less signal. Your arguements contained too much reason and not enough shouting :D
-
T'was a good thread.
And now to give it a proper end. (http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/1051/1051_01.asp)
-
Hey! That URL promised CHICKS! I clicked on it and all I got was some lame comic strip about an old bag teaching that she called evolution but obviously wasn't to a bunch of annoying parasites!
Where's my chicks!?
-
You didn't find that teacher to be hot?
Hmm, guess its only me...
-
Order this tract
Chick tracts come in packages of 25.
Just enter the quantity you want, such as "25" or "50" in the box below.
Prices are in US Dollars
English ($0.14 )
Isn;t there something about chucking moneylenders and marketeers out of the temple in the bible?
-
Yes, but they after that became the church
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
The Old TEstament was passed on verbally for hundereds of years before it was written down, and even then it passed trough kazillion priests....
The New Testament was written practicly imediately and a large part was written by the apostols themselves and materials from the new Testament were guarded durin the Roman persecutions. It is therefeore far more belivable then the Old Testament, Kuran or other similar books...
Even then, priest still tended to interpret things according to their own needs (Inquisition), alltough the text remained the same....
...You know what...this is starting to really bore me...I know what I know, you belive what you want...see if I care...
SIGNING OFF....
The Koran was actually written by Mohammed. You knew that, right? Whereas the New Testament was written about 20-50 years after the death of Christ, at a minimum?
-
Exactly. If we are saying that the time a holy book had to be altered by other people is the important factor than the Koran is more likely to be truthful since it was written by the actual prophet himself.
-
Originally posted by Grey Wolf 2009
The Koran was actually written by Mohammed. You knew that, right? Whereas the New Testament was written about 20-50 years after the death of Christ, at a minimum?
Wow, this is still going. :)
Ummm, what is your evidence for the Koran being written by Mohammed? To my knowledge, the Koran (lit. "recitations") were actually recordings of Mohammed (actually, I think it's spelled Muhammad) by his follwers when he was speaking, often in a state of trance (why he could not always record his own words).
By the way, GW, would you know the dates after death of the rest of the major bibliographies of historical figures were written? People like Julius Caesar, Napoleon, Plato?
-
A lot of the info about Caesar came from the time of Caesar, actually, which is partly the problem. You don't say much of any use about the guy who could have you executed on the spot for pissing him off.
-
Originally posted by Setekh
Ummm, what is your evidence for the Koran being written by Mohammed? To my knowledge, the Koran (lit. "recitations") were actually recordings of Mohammed (actually, I think it's spelled Muhammad) by his follwers when he was speaking, often in a state of trance (why he could not always record his own words).
I have to respond here to point out where you're correct and incorrect, Steak.
First, the Prophet was illiterate. He could not have written his words down himself. He would have required a scribe. His illiteracy is an important facet of al-Islam:
It was there one night toward the end of his quiet month that the first revelation came to him when hew was forty years old. He was asleep or in a trance when he heard a voice say: "Read!"
He said: "I cannot read."
The voice said again: "Read!"
He said: "I cannot read."
A third time the voice, more terrible, commanded: "Read!"
He said: "What can I read?"
The voice said: "Read: In the name of thy Lord Who createth. Createth man from a clot. Read: And it is they Lord the Most Bountiful, Who teacheth by the pen, Teacheth man that which he knew not."
When he awoke the words remained "as if inscribed upon his heart"
The voice, of course, is Gabriel bringing Allah's word to Mohammed.
Al-Qu'ran does not mean "the recitations". It is closer to "The Reading" or "The Lecture", and is analogous to "Scripture" in the sense of holy writings.
There are two sets of writings from the Prophet. The first are the trance transcriptions--the words of Allah, which are held seperate from the transcriptions of the Prophet's own words.
The transcriptions of al-Qu'ran, to my mind, are probably the most likely to be 'faithful' to the original. Whilst the Prophet could not, himself, verify their accuracy, he also taught all the words of al-Qu'ran to anyone who wanted to learn them. Many, apparently learned the words verbatim. These people would be able to guage the accuracy of the transcriptions. Further, they could discuss the transcriptions with the Prophet himself, to assure themselves and each other that they were accurate. I do not, of course, make any claim to the actual veracity of the transcriptions, only the logical likelihood of their accuracy.
If you have any questions about al-Qu'ran, I keep a copy here by my desk. I suppose I ought to keep a copy of the Bible as well, for these discussions. I'm just not sure which one I should get.
-
Originally posted by Setekh
...often in a state of trance...
So, a whole religion spawned from the ramblings of a stoned guy?
Why am I not surprised?
:p
-
Originally posted by mikhael
Don't be a dick, DG. That's an0n, Kaz and ZB's jobs.
Let him concede defeat gracefully.
i resent that statement
-
handbags at 12 paces!
-
No, Kaz. you RESEMBLE that statement. ;)
You gotta admit, Kaz, you can be a real dick when when you know you're right. ;)
-
Hey! I can be a real cock too! I just sort of, well... slack.
-
mikhael: yes i can be very ruthless when i know i'm completely and utterly right
-
Hehe, you're such a dick. :D
-
Originally posted by mikhael
If you have any questions about al-Qu'ran, I keep a copy here by my desk. I suppose I ought to keep a copy of the Bible as well, for these discussions. I'm just not sure which one I should get.
Cheers, those other facts are quite appreciated. However, I have heard conflicting definitions of the meaning of the name of the book, so I listed the one I'd heard more references for (from Muslims, that is).
On another note: no kidding about the Qu'ran on your desk? You read Arabic?
-
Shouldnt you keep a copy up on the highest surface in the room, tho?
-
Originally posted by Setekh
Cheers, those other facts are quite appreciated. However, I have heard conflicting definitions of the meaning of the name of the book, so I listed the one I'd heard more references for (from Muslims, that is).
On another note: no kidding about the Qu'ran on your desk? You read Arabic?
Mine is the english translation done by Muhammad Marmaduke Pickthall. Its the first translation done by a native English speaking, non-middle-eastern Muslim. He warns in the preface notes that this is NOT al-Qu'ran, as that sacred book can only be written in arabic for several linguistic and literary reasons. Its nicely annotated and is careful to note where the wording may not match precisely to the original meaning.
Yes, I keep a copy of al-Qu'ran on my desk, right next to a book on Australian aboriginal culture and mythology. I need to get a King James Bible and whichever Bible the Catholic church considers "proper", as well as the Torah. I've got some miscellaneous books on Buddhism, Taoism, Hindu, though none of the 'official' books. I've also got a couple books on Confuscius and the Analects. I groove on religion, mythology and philosophy.
Every Sunday in boot camp, navy recruits are given the opportunity to go worship at the non-denominational chapel. I figured I had nothing better to do on Sunday mornings, so I took to going to services held by the chaplains of various religions. My favorite was the Muslim chaplain, for various reasons (chief among which is he didn't try to convert me, only educate me). Unfortunately, there was no Jewish chaplain on staff at the time. The Muslim chaplain gave me this translation of al-Qu'ran and I read it throughout boot camp. I've had it now for ten years. I even carried it with me when I was stationed in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, a stone's throw from Mecca. As I am not really Muslim, I was unable to actually go and visit Mecca, but I was fortunate enough to be there during Ramadan.
I can read a very, very little arabic, but mostly its in the same vein as the kanji, hiragana and katakana I can read: survival symbols, road signs, shop signs and menus. :D
-
My entire comment was based on the blatant ignorance of fact in the post I was quoting, specifically the fact that he was saying that the New Testament would be closer to the specific words and acts of Jesus than the Koran/Quran would be to the acts of Mohammed. Sorry for my own factual inncacuracies.
-
Originally posted by diamondgeezer
Ha ha, we proved you wrong :D
OK, so we've got Lib and Trash to stand down... who's next?
In your dreams......No one short of GOD himself can prove me wrong!:D :drevil:
-
Mik: King James is far and away the best version, so long as you can take a little abstruse prose in the law-based books. The NIV is supposed to be fairly decent, but I've got one and it lacks the great feel King James had. Supposedly more literally accurate or no, it reads like one of those forced attempts to make an old ideology "hip" to dem youngsters these days.
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
In your dreams......No one short of GOD himself can prove me wrong!:D :drevil:
Or right.
Touche.
-
Stryke, the reason I seperate the KJV from whatever the Catholic approved version because the KJV is supposed to be edited. I'd like to get the two versions, just for comparison's sake.
-
all editions of the bible are edited and spun
-
yeah, I know, Kaz. But sometimes there's meaning to be had in finding out HOW they're edited to be different and how the versions spin each other.
From a historical and theolgical (not theosophical) point of view, his is actually one place where Jews and Muslims have the advantage on Christians. Jewish liturgical law, I believe, has a set of rules that act as a sort of 'information hygiene' inspector, ensuring that copies of the text are identical. Muslims, have similar rules (springing from the same source, IIRC). Christianity doesn't have that in the New Testament. This serves as a good explanation for differences found int he four Gospels and for later changes that crop up in various translations and revisions.
-
Originally posted by mikhael
Mine is the english translation done by Muhammad Marmaduke Pickthall. Its the first translation done by a native English speaking, non-middle-eastern Muslim. He warns in the preface notes that this is NOT al-Qu'ran, as that sacred book can only be written in arabic for several linguistic and literary reasons. Its nicely annotated and is careful to note where the wording may not match precisely to the original meaning.
Mmmm. :) It's been a little hobby of mine to learn Arabic, Hebrew and Greek (Hebrew is on the way in university, Greek and Arabic are moving very slowly). I'm frustrated by being unable to read so far, since my Muslim friends will always block off discussions by saying that only they can read the Qu'ran, and so end of story. Pretty sad way to discuss things, I guess.
Originally posted by Grey Wolf 2009
My entire comment was based on the blatant ignorance of fact in the post I was quoting, specifically the fact that he was saying that the New Testament would be closer to the specific words and acts of Jesus than the Koran/Quran would be to the acts of Mohammed. Sorry for my own factual inncacuracies.
That's cool. That you can admit anything wrong about your own words speaks very, very highly of you, IMHO.
-
Hmm... I don't think there's any single translation that includes all the stuff that was there before the priests took to cutting out inconvenient passages. All the versions I know of are based off of basically the same material as the KJV. I'm fairly certain you could get translations of the other stuff separately, if you knew what you were looking for and made friends with some theology prof, but as far as common versions go you might be out of luck there.
The "Catholic approved version", last I checked, was the NIV. Or, really, the Latin translations, but I don't suppose that's what you want. But it's been a while, and my memory's always been crap.
-
Hey, Stryke, I'm curious. What would you classify as an inconvenient passage? I've had discussions about this with my friends from the Art faculty at uni (great opinions over there), and before I lease my view on you, I want to hear the definition behind your assertion there of the cuttings-out.
The NIV can't really be the totally Roman-Catholic approved version, though - it lacks the Apocrypha/Deuterocanon. Unless they mean the NIV as an additional text, and not the whole deal.
-
Originally posted by Setekh
Mmmm. :) It's been a little hobby of mine to learn Arabic, Hebrew and Greek (Hebrew is on the way in university, Greek and Arabic are moving very slowly). I'm frustrated by being unable to read so far, since my Muslim friends will always block off discussions by saying that only they can read the Qu'ran, and so end of story. Pretty sad way to discuss things, I guess.
I would recommend finding your local mosque (I'm sure you have one, somewhere in Sydney) and trying to discuss things with the guy in charge.
Failing that, I'm always willing to discuss al-Qu'ran from a theological, secular point of view. :)
[edit]
And this reminds me yet again, I need to write up that thing I wanted to discuss with you. :D
[/edit]
-
Originally posted by mikhael
From a historical and theolgical (not theosophical) point of view, his is actually one place where Jews and Muslims have the advantage on Christians. Jewish liturgical law, I believe, has a set of rules that act as a sort of 'information hygiene' inspector, ensuring that copies of the text are identical. Muslims, have similar rules (springing from the same source, IIRC). Christianity doesn't have that in the New Testament. This serves as a good explanation for differences found int he four Gospels and for later changes that crop up in various translations and revisions.
Actually the primary problem with "forcing" Christians to stick to the original, unedited version, is that virtually nobody speaks or reads Latin / Greek anymore.
Biblical Hebrew is a bit different from modern Hebrew, but no so different that I cannot understand what I'm reading (for the most part). And I never studied Biblical Hebrew.
Translations are definitely a problem, especially when they screw up something as crucial and history-changing as the Commandment "Thou shalt not kill." That is just a wrong translation; the original is: "Lo Tirtzach", literally, "(You shall) Not Murder". The "you shall" is implied in the word "Lo". There's a world of difference between murder and kill.
Originally posted by Stryke 9
Hmm... I don't think there's any single translation that includes all the stuff that was there before the priests took to cutting out inconvenient passages. All the versions I know of are based off of basically the same material as the KJV. I'm fairly certain you could get translations of the other stuff separately, if you knew what you were looking for and made friends with some theology prof, but as far as common versions go you might be out of luck there.
Eh? If you know of a specific passage (in the Old Covenant), ask me - I can read Hebrew. :)
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
Translations are definitely a problem, especially when they screw up something as crucial and history-changing as the Commandment "Thou shalt not kill." That is just a wrong translation; the original is: "Lo Tirtzach", literally, "(You shall) Not Murder". The "you shall" is implied in the word "Lo". There's a world of difference between murder and kill.
Yah, I heard about this. As a lawyer, I know for a fact that there's a world of difference between murder and kill, just like Sandwich said.
You can kill in self-defense and you won't get prosecuted (at least, you don't deserve to get prosecuted). If you commit murder FOR ANY REASON, you're going to jail (or deserve to).
-
puts $5 on the table the mistranslation of "thou shalt not kill" was intentional
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Or right.
Touche.
The beautiull thing about religion is - IT DOESN'T NEED NO FRIGGIN PROOF!!!(Alltough I see proof everywhere)
I'm quite happy with how things stand now, while all nothing-but-science-belivers will allways wonder if there is a God....
-
There will be no God as soon as the humanity will be omniscent, there's no other way around... Though Arthur C. Clarck has an interesting theory in his book 3010: Final Odissey
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
I'm quite happy with how things stand now, while all nothing-but-science-belivers will allways wonder if there is a God....
I spend no more time wondering if there is a God than wondering if I'm going to be eaten by a giant mutant badger next time I leave the house. Both are equally improbable events to me.
-
I reckon I wonder about God a lot less than many Christians wonder about how, for example, stars are formed
-
Originally posted by Kazan
puts $5 on the table the mistranslation of "thou shalt not kill" was intentional
Wouldn't surprise me.
-
Originally posted by diamondgeezer
I reckon I wonder about God a lot less than many Christians wonder about how, for example, stars are formed
if they wonder how stars are formed they failed middle school science
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
The beautiull thing about religion is - IT DOESN'T NEED NO FRIGGIN PROOF!!!(Alltough I see proof everywhere)
I'm quite happy with how things stand now, while all nothing-but-science-belivers will allways wonder if there is a God....
Dude, just leave already.
The proof behind religon is that you are here, and that's how it happened, along with the faith of it's followers. If you are religous and don't understand that, you're in the wrong boat buddy.
-
Knight: that's not proof and you know it - don't use the word wrong
TrashMan: keep the delusions coming
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
all nothing-but-science-belivers will allways wonder if there is a God....
that premise is already proven false - because i don't
-
Originally posted by Kazan
Knight: that's not proof and you know it - don't use the word wrong
I'm using the term proof from the stance of a deeply religous person. (namely Trashman) :doubt:
I thought you would have picked up on my true stance by now.
-
Knight: i don't care if you're jumping into their shoes - using the term "proof" validates their delusional thoughts on what is and is not proof
atleast it does so in their own minds
-
Trashman is deeply religious? I think "deeply religous" people by definition don't make their religion up on the fly.
-
My point was that his version of proof doesn't even fit with the religon he is defending. I never said he was right, just that his idea of proof and religon is wrong, based solely on an object view of what religon considers proof...
Do you really get so uppidity when people try to be civiliized about things? This really isn't something worth arguing over...
Stryke: Maybe he really likes his own religon. A lot. ;)
-
I get uppity when anyone does anything that validates mass insanity
-
Hell I was going to become religious I'd definately make it up as I went along :) What's the point in following what someone else says?
If you make **** up as you go along and just claim God told you it then you have much more fun :D
-
Kaz: Shut up and listen for once. I was never talking (sarcastically) about validating religon. I was speaking from the point of view a religous person would have, and what they would find as proof of their religon being true. I never said that that was right, and if I came off as that way, it's not what I meant, but rather that's how someone religous would generally think. Now unless you are saying that it's not true that a person with religous feelings would feel that way, then kindly back off and cool down. Please.
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
Trashman is deeply religious? I think "deeply religous" people by definition don't make their religion up on the fly.
Uumm....Nah...I'm not "Deeply Religious"...Alltough I reckon I'm far above avarage....
I don't drink, smoke, do drugs, don't get into fights, don't spread bad gossip, don't steal, etc, etc...
I have my bad sides - childish, lazy, thickheaded, not very tidy..
I do try to be a good Christian alltough I tend to fail more often than not, but I don't let that discourage me....
@KT...You missunderstood.. I never said those things are solid proof, I said they are proof enough FOR ME....
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
I don't drink...
Just for the sake of stirring up some trouble and perhaps changing the direction this thread's taken, what do you mean by "I don't drink"? Do you abstain from all alcoholic products, or do you recognize that Jesus did indeed turn water into wine, not grapejuice, and just avoid getting drunk or habitual about drinking?
-
Beating up on TrashMan > another religion debate.
-
Originally posted by Kazan
if they wonder how stars are formed they failed middle school science
Just so you know, wonder doesn't mean ignorance. :) I wonder all the time at things precisely because I know how they work.
-
Setekh: that is a contradiction
-
Depends on your usage of the word "wonder" doesnt it? I don't wonder how stars are formed, I know how that happens. But I do wonder that it happens. It's an incredible thing. Of course there's an explanation for it - but there mere fact that it happens is something to wonder at.
I hope that makes sense :doubt:
-
it makes sense - but i disagree it isn't a wonder, it would be a wonder if they didn't form
-
Well, that's from the point of view of someone who has lived their entire life in a universe filled with stars. If you lived in a universe with only a single star, your perceptions would be different.
On a side note, religion isn't really supposed to explain the "how". That is the role of science. The purpose of religion and philosophy is to instead explain the "why".
Science: We are born, we live, and we die.
Religion: Why are we born, why do we live, and why do we die?
This kind of defeats the entire basis of the debate in about half of this thread, IIRC. Of course, this still makes the concept of Genesis up through the flood impossible to be anything other than symbolic, but still.
-
Science attempts to explain why, but takes the approach that if we could understand the very first instant of the Universe, the rest of history should in theory be predictable. Or something. Hence trying to discover the theory of everything - should he ever discover that, we'll know how and why
-
Who would want to, though?
-
Philosophy and religion, in intelligent forms, stay clear of scientifical questions. However, there are a hell of a lot questions and matters which will remain philosophers' areas. Literature, art, heck - human relationships are often so completely retarded that trying to find any natural causes behind actions will result in headache. Original philosophers were mathematicians, biologists and artists, but nowadays such a diversity is quite impossible.
But as religion tampers in the areas where it can give us nothing but vague statements - say, practically everything not dependant of humans - it gets evil.
-
The Unified Field Theory isn't supposed to explain the "why". It's just supposed to be a single theory that can explain the gravitic, electromagnetic, strong nuclear, and weak nuclear forces. Where'd you get the idea that the Unified Field Theory will explain everything?
-
I don't think he's talking about the Unified Field Theory. I might be wrong, though.
-
Originally posted by Grey Wolf 2009
On a side note, religion isn't really supposed to explain the "how". That is the role of science. The purpose of religion and philosophy is to instead explain the "why".
Science: We are born, we live, and we die.
Religion: Why are we born, why do we live, and why do we die?
Religion makes the assumption that there is a why. There may not be one. We may simply be born, live and die simply because the Earth has conditions that made it possible.
-
I just had a talk with my community priest...Guess what ..
He sez tat good people go to heaven REGARDLESS OF THEIR FAITH....
And to get back on topic:
As one philosopher/saint once said: "If you could understand him, then it wouldn't be God..."
On the side note, one does not "belive" in science. Science just is.
I don't belive that there is a tree trunk right infront of me...I see it..I know it. One belives in things one doen't know about.
Going against science is like saying that there is no tree trunk, which is incredibly apsurd and dumb....
@Sandwich - I don't drink alchocol at all. Hate it. Tastes terrible. And nubs the mind.
-
Originally posted by Grey Wolf 2009
The Unified Field Theory isn't supposed to explain the "why". It's just supposed to be a single theory that can explain the gravitic, electromagnetic, strong nuclear, and weak nuclear forces. Where'd you get the idea that the Unified Field Theory will explain everything?
I was refering to the theory of everything as described in Universe in a Nutshell. Think about it - if you could understand exactly how EVERYTHING happens, you could employ simple cause-and-effect to determine why. The initial event may be a bit tricky, but then they call it the theory of everythign for a reason...
-
If you knew the exact velocity and position of every particle in the universe you would know everything there was, is and will be... it that was possible in the first place of course. But the closest you are to figuring out the position of a particle the farther you are from finding out it's velocity and vice-versa.
Even so you would only find out how it happened, why is something we humans made up. (personal opinion)
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
I don't belive that there is a tree trunk right infront of me...
Yes you do.
Unless, of course, you can provide me with a logical proof that there is a tree trunk in front of you, that there is a tree trunk to be in front of you, that there is a you to be behind a tree trunk, and that there is a reality for you to exist in and have a tree trunk in front of you.
Unfortunately, you can't. For all you know, it could all be just a dream, (http://www.xs4all.nl/~mke/Dreamsend.htm) or not even that.
Funnily enough, while the problem of 'you have no reason to consider that true' applies to ideas that we're just butterflies dreaming we're men, it also applies to the idea that we are real men after all.
-
And if you take apart the nucleus? You’ll be in for a big surprise. For inside an atom’s nucleus, reality as we know it actually ceases to exist.
:wtf:
Protons and Neutrons maybe? After that Quarks? etc...?
He's talking about the freaking String Theory... nothing about non-existance and stuff...
-
Diamondgeezer, Ghostavo is right. A theory of everything as you stated is impossible due to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. You can not know both the location and velocity of an object at any given time.
-
Eep. Better go tell Hawking and his mates they're wasting their time then
-
Originally posted by Ghostavo
Protons and Neutrons maybe? After that Quarks? etc...?
He's about the freaking String Theory... nothing about non-existance and stuff...
...
Okay, that was completely random.
-
I thought Hawkins theories worked on groups of objects, so while you cannot know an electrons precise location and velocity simultaneously, you can know the average location and velocity of a group of electrons? Always reminded me a little of Physcohistory actually ;)
-
Originally posted by Grey Wolf 2009
Diamondgeezer, Ghostavo is right. A theory of everything as you stated is impossible due to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. You can not know both the location and velocity of an object at any given time.
IIRC Heisenbergers principle is specifically "you cannot observe something without altering it".
I.e. if you measure the position of an atom, you change it's velocity, and vice versa.
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
I just had a talk with my community priest...Guess what ..
He sez tat good people go to heaven REGARDLESS OF THEIR FAITH....
And you agree with him?
Originally posted by TrashMan
@Sandwich - I don't drink alchocol at all. Hate it. Tastes terrible. And nubs the mind.
Ahh, then that's a matter of personal taste. :)
-
"The more precisely the position is determined, the less precisely the momentum is known in this instant, and vice versa."
That is the Uncertainty Principle.
-
What did I say?
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
I just had a talk with my community priest...Guess what ..
He sez tat good people go to heaven REGARDLESS OF THEIR FAITH....
ummm. Then why be a christian? Be an atheist. You still get into heaven and you get Sundays off :D
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
And you agree with him?
He IS a priest, Sandwich. Why shouldn't Trashman believe him?
-
Because of what he does to Trashman's lil' brother Tuesday nights?
-
Uncalled for.
-
I shoulda laid a bet at the beginning of this thread as to how long we could go without a pedophile priest joke.
Woulda lost, but anyway.
-
Originally posted by Flipside
Physcohistory
Daneel dectects that you are in an agreeable mood and making wise references :D
-
Psychohistory? I really need to read the Foundation series. The only book that features Psychohistory I ever read was the unofficial, not-in-the-same-world-honest story "Psychohistorical Crisis". That was more kick ass than I have words for.
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
I shoulda laid a bet at the beginning of this thread as to how long we could go without a pedophile priest joke.
Woulda lost, but anyway.
10 pages too long. ;)
-
Originally posted by mikhael
He IS a priest, Sandwich. Why shouldn't Trashman believe him?
And I'm an honest guy. Why shouldn't you believe me?
Priest, prophet, or pastor, it doesn't matter who they are or how much credentials they have - if what they say does not line up with the Bible, they're wrong. At least, that's how Christians are supposed to live. :-/
-
you mean the book that is in it's current form only becase empirer Constanteen wanted to order fifty of them and they didn't want to have to tell him a few years later that they chenged there minds about something.
-
Ah, but see, we only have YOUR word that your interpretation of a dusty tome is accurate. This priest has a different interpretation and he'll tell you its accurate.
This side of death, neither of you can prove the other wrong and yourself right. That's the central ambiguity of all religion.
-
I got it!
all we've got to do is have one of us die! then they can tell us wich one is right!
...not it!
-
@KT - I don't have a lil' brother you psycho....
@Sandwich - I do think a Priest knows far better then you the core of Christianity. And I didn't ask just one priest - I asked several....they all agree...
@kajorama - Christians get a bonus:D
-
I think I agree with that pretty solidly, Mik, at least in the sense I think you mean it. But I think that interpretations of tomes (mine isn't dusty, I fling it around too much ;)) aren't all equally valid. Some just don't make sense of the text totally, and some don't make sense of the world around us.
-
TrashMan... lol :D
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
@kajorama - Christians get a bonus:D
:lol: Fair enough but what is it? An extra big house in heaven? :D
-
Originally posted by Setekh
I think I agree with that pretty solidly, Mik, at least in the sense I think you mean it. But I think that interpretations of tomes (mine isn't dusty, I fling it around too much ;)) aren't all equally valid. Some just don't make sense of the text totally, and some don't make sense of the world around us.
I mean that there are many interpretations, and none of them can be proved to be the 'right' or 'correct' one. I am making no claims as to the validity of ANY of them, however. The short form: "You can prove some of them wrong, but you can't prove any of them right."
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
@Sandwich - I do think a Priest knows far better then you the core of Christianity. And I didn't ask just one priest - I asked several....they all agree...
First of all.... "priest"? I'm a "priest", for one thing - Cohen. Michael Cohen. Not that that really means much in my case, just thought I'd bring it up. :p
But seriously, read your Bible. That is the core of Christianity, and if a priest is saying what you said they were saying, then they're ignorant of the Bible.
-
From what I've heard, the Catholic church maintains a deep respect for other religions, saying that truth can be found in all of them.
That much I agree with. But some people extend that to say that all religions are true, or that all religions get you into heaven. Which I disagree with.
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
But seriously, read your Bible. That is the core of Christianity, and if a priest is saying what you said they were saying, then they're ignorant of the Bible.
It would seem that these priests, considering they ARE priests, have read the Bible, and have come up with an interpretation that is different than your interpretation.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
:lol: Fair enough but what is it? An extra big house in heaven? :D
A slight discount regarding their sins methinks:D Or 70 hot vergins! Make your pick!
@Sandwich - what is the core of Christianity? Didn't Christ say that he came for all men (not just Jews/Christinas) Remember the story of the good samaritan? Remember the mercy he showed to everyone, regarless of whom they were?
God loves those who do good. You tell me - why wouldn't he then reward them for their good deeds?
And you a priest? Of what relegion/faith/cult/sect?
And I did ask several priest, some of which i know very good, some of which I'm related to, and they are all some of the best men I ever met. I would say you were outvoted.....
-
Originally posted by Goober5000
From what I've heard, the Catholic church maintains a deep respect for other religions, saying that truth can be found in all of them.
The Catholic church also negotiated a sort of non-agression thingy with the Nazis
-
The first step to better oneself is to admitt your mistakes and try to correct them...
I don't recall ever seeing other religions doing that....
And you seem to forget that the Catholic Church is not a state. It doesn't have a army to fight, and Vatican is in the middle of Rome.
-
Maybe that's because other religions don't make such mistakes!! :D (just kidding)
-
So the Vatican's duty was to save itself and it's followers before protesting against the Nazis? I appreciate that maybe they thought they could save people (ie. catholic people) from the oncomming juggernaut, but saving their own asses instead of standing up to a force of evil sucks major egg in my opinion
-
Not to mention that the SS was made up of about 40% catholic people. Certainly a big enough percentage to have caused all kinds of problems had the pope told them to switch sides.
-
http://sxws.com/charis/history-6.htm
< Lights blue touch paper >
< retires >
;)
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
And you seem to forget that the Catholic Church is not a state. It doesn't have a army to fight, and Vatican is in the middle of Rome.
Actually, it does have an army. The Swiss Guard. One of the few armies in the world to still use halberds and swords in addition to modern weaponry, with a total of 100 including the chaplain and the drummers. And the Vatican is an independent country, with the Pope as the official leader.
Not that this has any relevance, mind you.
-
Originally posted by Flipside
http://sxws.com/charis/history-6.htm
< Lights blue touch paper >
< retires >
;)
You know attempts at that have been made throughout history, right? The attempts by French Catholics to wipe out the Huguenots. The battle over the Church of England led to the fall of a ruling house in Britain (the Stuarts). People do stupid things in the name of religion all the time.
I'm not trying to belittle the Holocaust in any way, mind you. I'm just pointing out that there have been many cases of religious bloodshed throughout the ages.
I also question the validity of some of the quotes within that page. Also, it seems very slanted throughout.
-
I thought we'd agreed earlier that the behavior of some idiots within a religion does not invalidate that religions (I believe we were talking about Eric Rudolph and islamist extremist terrorists at the time). It does not matter whether the Church worked out a deal with the Nazis. What matters, for the purposes of this thread is the beliefs and faith the religion represents. If we start picking apart faiths based on their most mistaken followers, not one religion will survive the examination, nor will the non-faith of science.
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
@Sandwich - what is the core of Christianity? Didn't Christ say that he came for all men (not just Jews/Christinas) Remember the story of the good samaritan? Remember the mercy he showed to everyone, regarless of whom they were?
Jesus also said that He is the way, the truth, and the life, and that no one can come unto the Father but through Him. That passage is obviously dealing with salvation, not with "who should we be nice to?" I fully agree with being "nice" to everyone, regardless of who they are - and besides, that's Biblical, to repay evildoers with good, and thus you will heap burning coals (of shame for their actions) upon their head. That's from Proverbs, IIRC.
But that in no way translates into salvation for everyone regardless of what they believe in.
Originally posted by TrashMan
God loves those who do good. You tell me - why wouldn't he then reward them for their good deeds?
What the heck are you talking about? I mean, you're right that God loves those who do good deeds in a scrictly literal sense, but you make it sound like you need to do good deeds in order for God to love you.
News Flash: God loves you, no matter who you are, what you've done, or how many kittens you've killed with a BB gun.
Originally posted by TrashMan
And you a priest? Of what relegion/faith/cult/sect?
And I did ask several priest, some of which i know very good, some of which I'm related to, and they are all some of the best men I ever met. I would say you were outvoted.....
The Cohanim were the priests of the tribes of Israel back in the day. It just happens to be my last name - I wasn't being serious that that gave me any credibility.
What kind of priests have you been asking? Catholic?
Originally posted by mikhael
I thought we'd agreed earlier that the behavior of some idiots within a religion does not invalidate that religions (I believe we were talking about Eric Rudolph and islamist extremist terrorists at the time). It does not matter whether the Church worked out a deal with the Nazis. What matters, for the purposes of this thread is the beliefs and faith the religion represents. If we start picking apart faiths based on their most mistaken followers, not one religion will survive the examination, nor will the non-faith of science.
Amen. :nod: ;)
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
But seriously, read your Bible. That is the core of Christianity, and if a priest is saying what you said they were saying, then they're ignorant of the Bible.
It would seem that these priests, considering they ARE priests, have read the Bible, and have come up with an interpretation that is different than your interpretation.
-
I thought it was the Levites that were the preists
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
@Sandwich - what is the core of Christianity? Didn't Christ say that he came for all men (not just Jews/Christinas) Remember the story of the good samaritan? Remember the mercy he showed to everyone, regarless of whom they were?
God loves those who do good. You tell me - why wouldn't he then reward them for their good deeds?
To add to what Sandwich has said, it may be worth your time to have a re-read of Phillipians 3, where Paul describes how worthless good deeds are in comparison to "righteousness that comes from God and is by faith". Good deeds are wonderful, but they are only useful as evidence for a character transformed by grace, not as a means of salvation.
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
@Sandwich - I do think a Priest knows far better then you the core of Christianity. And I didn't ask just one priest - I asked several....they all agree...
Short, simple answer: As someone who is only a couple steps from being the guy who trains clergy for their task, I can tell you that either they didn't learn their lessons well, or else their teachers need to come up for review.
Longer, more nuanced answer: Multiple understandings of the Christian religion exist. However, one of the main differences between theology and philosophy is that theology has a rule against which to measure ideas. Ideas that break the rules are heretical. Ideas that do not break the rules are orthodox. If a given understanding of the Christian religion breaks the rules, it is heresy. The idea that well-behaved people will receive eternal life simply by virtue of being well-behaved vilolates the rules.
It would be correct to say that Christians are called to be disciples of Jesus. This means putting our trust in him for our salvation, making him our leader/king/teacher, learning from him how to confrom our lives to his example and will, and more. Merely "being good" is not the same as "being a disciple of Jesus"--there is much more to it than just being good.
-
I don't recall at any point saying I agreed with the views on the website I posted, just wanted to point out that, since everyone has a different point of view, theres no point asking which the right one is.
I like religion, I detest churches.
-
Originally posted by Flipside
I don't recall at any point saying I agreed with the views on the website I posted, just wanted to point out that, since everyone has a different point of view, theres no point asking which the right one is.
I like religion, I detest churches.
I'm quite the opposite, I loathe religion for the control it seems to have over people (same reason I loathe T.V really) but I think some churches are exquisitely beautiful buildings.
-
LOL We both mean the same thing, just the other way round, what I mean is that to have a faith in something beyond yourself, is a good and even healthy aspiration. But I hate the idea of the 'Church of XX' etc, because all of a sudden you put people between yourself and your beliefs, and that is always dangerous.
-
Originally posted by mikhael
It would seem that these priests, considering they ARE priests, have read the Bible, and have come up with an interpretation that is different than your interpretation.
It would seem that way, considering they are priests, wouldn't it? Unfortunately, complete or partial familiarity with the basis and root of one's beliefs is not quite as widespread as one would think.
Example: I think you'll agree with me that the "Christian" Bible begins at Genesis and ends at Revelations, right? It's not solely the New Covenant, in other words.
My father, who preaches in churches and congregations around Europe and the US, asked the church members at one of the meetings a few years back how many of them had read the whole Bible at least once, from Genesis to Revelations.
He was ashamed and shocked to see a mere 20% or so of the people raise their hands.
Similarly, many religious Jews have not read the whole Tanach (Old Covenant) through. They have select passages spoon-fed them by Rabbis, they read through the Psalms hundreds of times, and they have the Torah portion readings which go through the first 5 books, Genesis-Deuteronomy, once a year.
Such examples should serve as a warning not to assume that someone has certain knowledge simply because of their title or position.
The Bible is very clear on the issue of other gods, other ways for salvation. It is clear beyond any possible mistranslations. Thus, the only logical conclusion that can be drawn from an example of priests who claim that we all worship the same god is that those priests have not read the Bible through. Either that or they are purposefully misleading others. :(
Originally posted by Bobboau
I thought it was the Levites that were the preists
Some of them (http://www.keyway.ca/htm2002/levites.htm), yeah. It's a square-rectangle thing.
-
Some priests are completely incompetent. The one at my church, for example. His homilies make less sense than what Darkage said when he was drunk :p
-
Sandwich are you a cohen?
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
The Bible is very clear on the issue of other gods, other ways for salvation. It is clear beyond any possible mistranslations. Thus, the only logical conclusion that can be drawn from an example of priests who claim that we all worship the same god is that those priests have not read the Bible through. Either that or they are purposefully misleading others. :(
Or, perhaps, they have read it and come to a different conclusion about what it means.
You continue to assume that ONLY your interpretation could possibly be correct.
-
Originally posted by Corsair
Sandwich are you a cohen?
That's my last name, yep. :)
Originally posted by mikhael
Or, perhaps, they have read it and come to a different conclusion about what it means.
You continue to assume that ONLY your interpretation could possibly be correct.
I do see your point, Mik, but I maintain that it is not a matter that is stated vaguely enough that differing interpretations can change the meaning so drastically.
Of course, I should probably know better than to assume that sort of thing; I had a chat with a religious Jew in reserves last year. We spoke about the Ten Commandments. One of them is, in Hebrew, "Lo Tignov", which is "(you shall) not steal".
In my utter silliness, I assumed that that meant "You shall not steal." Hah.
So this dude informed me that the Rabbis decided that the "Don't steal stuff" verse is actually the "You shall not covet your neighbors' blah blah". The first verse actually means "You shall not steal a man's soul". :wtf:
Apparently the Rabbis of this generation decided that it meant just that. Also, if the next line of Rabbis decide it means "Don't steal stuff", then the meaning will change and it'll mean that.
At this point I gave up the discussion; how can one debate a matter of meaning with someone who doesn't really care what a statement is, it only matters what people with titles say it means?
Hence my point on remaining true to the written word of God. It is (should be) the bottom-line for Christians and Jews, because blind reliance on Man's interpretation can get wildly varying results, even to the point of outright contradiction with what is actually written.
-
I vaugely recal something about the law being writen in your heart and not in stone, thinking i's something Jesus said, but as I said it's only a vauge memory.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
I vaugely recal something about the law being writen in your heart and not in stone, thinking i's something Jesus said, but as I said it's only a vauge memory.
Among other things, it's an Old Testament promise that God makes to Ezekiel about the future people of God (Ezekiel 36). Rather than having the law written on stone tablets (thus being able to force behaviour but not actually make us want to do something), our behaviour and nature will actually be changed. Paul uses a similar analogy to reference to the Gentiles being given consciences apart from the Old Testament Law in Romans 2, and also refers to the same heart/stone terminology in 2 Corinthians 3 (though there it has quite a different meaning). :)
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
Hence my point on remaining true to the written word of God. It is (should be) the bottom-line for Christians and Jews, because blind reliance on Man's interpretation can get wildly varying results, even to the point of outright contradiction with what is actually written.
Absolutely! Adhere to the Word of God!
The only problem that comes up is IDENTIFYING the Word of God and seperating it from what mankind tacks on to the Word of God. You cannot trust blindly anyone who says he knows what God meant--especially when he has something to gain by making you believe it, be it money or authority or power.
Look at what you wrote: "blind reliance on Man's interpretation can get wildly varying results". Think about that. Think about it very carefully. Man's interpretation is all we've got. God's not hanging around down at the deli explaining the Bible to anyone. All we've got is a bunch of ancient writings and men--for we and the priests and rabbis and imams and scholars, etc are nothing but men--interpretting them.
Every time someone opens his mouth and says, "God said..." or "The Bible says..." or "I prayed and God sent to me...", you're getting a human being's interpretation of the Divine Word. You're getting that interpretation tempered by all the things that make up that person's personality, all the complex and shifting emotions and ideas that shape the way they think and act.
The testaments of the Bible and the witness of al-Quran are no different. They might just enshrine the Word of God and the Divine Will. Unfortunately, they've been passed down, translated, retranslated, re-retranslated, reinterpretted, and even, at times, purposely changed for the convenience of a powerful leader. What better way to control the hearts and minds of men then to tell them that what you want is what God wants?
Consider the example of the four main Gospels. They put forward the idea that the only way to Salvation is through Jesus. Further, they support an organization to promote this view: the Church. We get Peter as the first Pope to be the leader of that Church. During the process of picking the Canon, books were picked to suit the aims of the Church. Some books became canon, the others became apocryphal. Those that did not support the authority of a monolithic Church, among other things, were thrown out.
Does this invalidate the whole book? Absolutely not! The moral guidelines it enshrines still hold true today, thousands of years later. We shouldn't murder or steal. We shouldn't break our oaths or commit adultery.
Finding some truth in something as large and complex as the Bible does not make the whole thing true, any more than finding an error or lie makes the whole thing false.
-
Originally posted by mikhael
Look at what you wrote: "blind reliance on Man's interpretation can get wildly varying results". Think about that. Think about it very carefully. Man's interpretation is all we've got. God's not hanging around down at the deli explaining the Bible to anyone. All we've got is a bunch of ancient writings and men--for we and the priests and rabbis and imams and scholars, etc are nothing but men--interpretting them.
And here's where faith comes into the picture for me. I have faith that God is perfectly capable of making sure that the content He wanted got into THE book that would be considered to be a representation of His will by a large portion of the world. I don't have faith in the New International Version, I don't have faith in the New King Jameth, etc. When I want to check something specific out, I go to the source. And I have no choice but to trust God that that source is as "pure" as it needs to be for me.
But just like museum-goers appreciating an abstract painting on the wall, there's a limit to how far interpretation can be stretched. If a painting is a jumble of sharp shapes in hues of purple and blue, you can reasonably expect some to say that it reminds them of one thing while others are reminded of something else. But if you encounter a person who cannot stand the harsh yellow colors, then you know something's wrong with that person's interpretation of the painting.
As a more to-the-point example, take the Ten Commandments. The commandments are usually translated as an imperative, "You shall not XXXX". However, the Hebrew also allows that to be a statement of fact, not an imperative command. "You won't do this" as opposed to "Don't do this." And, perhaps by coincidence, the usual translation also allows this possible double-meaning. "You shall not XXX."
This instance is not something that can be solidly proven to mean one thing or another by going to the source. In such cases, of which there are many, I simply have to trust God. :nod:
-
Faith is the first fallacy, and the greatest
-
Not neccesarily Kaz, Faith is very important in a lot of things. It's not just about the book, it's about the person reading it as well, as has already been mentioned here. If the person reading the book bears in mind that humans wrote it, that it contains only the interpretations through human eyes of what they percieve God's wishes to be.
The Bible contains some wonderful lines 'Thou shalt not kill' the 2nd commandment (The first one, to my mind, was added later). Much smiting ensues after this, but I think that is a case of 'PR' writing, like any good book, it's got to have action scenes, else people would get bored and stop reading ;)
I'm not saying this to offend anyones beliefs, I myself, I suppose, you would call a 'Tree Hugger' in a way, though I'm not against using resources, I suppose my 'God' is what I stand on, eat, breath etc. And I don't need to go to any special place to be any nearer to it.
What makes religion dangerous is those who will not accept that there is any possibility for error in a holy book. Those who think 'If it was good enough 2000 years ago, it's good enough now'. Whoever your God is, or isn't you are a thinking, reasoning intelligent being and you were made/evolved that way, for a reason.
I am often saddened that people do not look at such a book and think 'Right, Circumsision, that's silly, we don't need that any more, it's pointless and a mutilation of God's work'. It probably served a purpose at the time, but I cannot believe that a God would give Mankind Earth 'and all upon it', and allow us to think and reason and learn without expecting us to alter with the times and needs, and to grow into what He hopes we can become.
Once again, I'm not intending to offend anyone with this, but I really do think the 'to the letter' side of religion has completely the wrong end of the stick.
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
And here's where faith comes into the picture for me. I have faith that God is perfectly capable of making sure that the content He wanted got into THE book that would be considered to be a representation of His will by a large portion of the world. I don't have faith in the New International Version, I don't have faith in the New King Jameth, etc. When I want to check something specific out, I go to the source. And I have no choice but to trust God that that source is as "pure" as it needs to be for me.
Just as others have faith that what they believe correct and what you believe is incorrect.
Unless God's been hanging around with you and you've got incontrovertible evidence thereof, your faith really just opinion. Its YOUR opinion, and you believe in it strongly. It doesn't make it the unimpeachable truth.
-
Originally posted by Flipside
*snip*
You sound like you pray at the church of Bill Hicks and if you don't you'd probably enjoy what he had to say. :)
-
interestingly enough (and because I want to enter the discussion again, after being defeated once, and fought to a stalemate by kara, but nevertheless), islam forbids all interpretation of the koran. The fact, that the bible (or the koran for that matter) can be interpreted at all, already means that there is no infallible *godly* truth in the matter.
And flipside, nice to see someone agrees with my views.
-
LOL I have seen videos of Bill, was the 'If God is everywhere, why go to church?' sketch?
-
Originally posted by Flipside
LOL I have seen videos of Bill, was the 'If God is everywhere, why go to church?' sketch?
From reading the stuff you've written in this thread I really think you should check him out because he really was a comedian that could make you think hard and laugh hard at the same time.
-
I'll do that 10, thanks :)
-
Hell I'm an atheist and I find him very funny. :D What is uncanny is how much of what he said about the first gulf war applied to this one.
Oh and before you ask. The answer to his question about atheists is yes, yes, yes (repeat until a cigarette is required) :D
-
Originally posted by Flipside
The Bible contains some wonderful lines 'Thou shalt not kill' the 2nd commandment (The first one, to my mind, was added later).
*ahem*
"Thou shalt not murder." Not "kill'. And that's not a matter of iffy interpretations, either. ;)
Originally posted by mikhael
Just as others have faith that what they believe correct and what you believe is incorrect.
Unless God's been hanging around with you and you've got incontrovertible evidence thereof, your faith really just opinion. Its YOUR opinion, and you believe in it strongly. It doesn't make it the unimpeachable truth.
Exactly!
Originally posted by Flipside
LOL I have seen videos of Bill, was the 'If God is everywhere, why go to church?' sketch?
I sort of agree with this, actually. :)
I don't go to church because 'that's where God is.'
-
But then, look at the definition of 'Murder' - killing with pre-meditation, planning to kill. This, by literal translations means 'You shall not plan to end a life'.
This is good :)
-
Originally posted by Flipside
But then, look at the definition of 'Murder' - killing with pre-meditation, planning to kill. This, by literal translations means 'You shall not plan to end a life'.
This is good :)
Erm, not quite. When capital punishment is meted out, it is most definitely a planned killing, and yet it is not defined as "murder".
Murder, AFAIK, is unwarranted killing. Mind you, it's not often that someone actually deserves to be killed (unless you want to look at it from a spiritual/Christian POV, in which case we ALL deserve to die for our sins), but take soldiers in a war as an example. They go out onto the battlefield, planning to kill the enemy. Do you call that murder?
-
Careful Sandwich. You're laying your own interpretation of the meaning of 'murder' there.
Its always interpretation, even if you're looking at the text in the original language.
-
Look at the classic and frequently contested tale of Onan.
Why was Onan killed by God? Because he 'wasted' (I believe the word used is stronger than 'spilt') his seed on the ground. He 'murdered' the life that could have been created. I think this part of the bible is showing that God REALLY means 'A life for a life'.
I would not call soldiers murderers because they are doing their job, for what they believe is right. And the ethos that travels with the tag 'murderer' is unfair to apply to them.
However a war is state-santioned murder in the coldest, most unemotional view (I'm not even beginning to consider things like 'just' or 'unjust' or other opinion related things, purely the facts, which is a War is premeditated, and once it is started, it is undoubted that people will lose their lives).
That is why I cannot accept that any God would sanction the killing of his own creations, regardless of who, if anyone is 'right'.
Edit : I AM aware that sometimes the death of one person can save the lives of many, etc, just want to restress, I am not sitting in judgement here, so please don't take anything I say personally :)
-
Originally posted by mikhael
Careful Sandwich. You're laying your own interpretation of the meaning of 'murder' there.
Its always interpretation, even if you're looking at the text in the original language.
I am? How? I was merely trying to correctly define "murder" there.
-
Actually, Veering slightly to one side, I think my 'personal' bible is one line long, and it's the best line written in any book ever.
'Treat others as you would be treated yourself'. Or however the precise wording goes :)
-
Originally posted by Flipside
Actually, Veering slightly to one side, I think my 'personal' bible is one line long, and it's the best line written in any book ever.
'Treat others as you would be treated yourself'. Or however the precise wording goes :)
Definitely a good start. :nod: :yes:
-
Originally posted by Flipside
'Treat others as you would be treated yourself'. Or however the precise wording goes :)
"That on which the Law and the Prophets hang". :)
-
Originally posted by Flipside
Look at the classic and frequently contested tale of Onan.
Why was Onan killed by God? Because he 'wasted' (I believe the word used is stronger than 'spilt') his seed on the ground. He 'murdered' the life that could have been created. I think this part of the bible is showing that God REALLY means 'A life for a life'.
I would not call soldiers murderers because they are doing their job, for what they believe is right. And the ethos that travels with the tag 'murderer' is unfair to apply to them.
However a war is state-santioned murder in the coldest, most unemotional view (I'm not even beginning to consider things like 'just' or 'unjust' or other opinion related things, purely the facts, which is a War is premeditated, and once it is started, it is undoubted that people will lose their lives).
That is why I cannot accept that any God would sanction the killing of his own creations, regardless of who, if anyone is 'right'.
Edit : I AM aware that sometimes the death of one person can save the lives of many, etc, just want to restress, I am not sitting in judgement here, so please don't take anything I say personally :)
War is hell. Any soldier that kills in anything but self-defence(country defence) is a murderer.
If a army general would one day come to me and tell me that my country is going to war against someone and tell mo to go there and start shooting "enemy soldiers" the first one I would shoot would be either the general or the president.
ONLY defense. NO attack or "preemptive" strike....
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
I am? How? I was merely trying to correctly define "murder" there.
Defining words is so problematic, isn't it?
Here's some definitions for murder. The agree more often than they don't, but not entirely:
[list=1]- The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.
- To kill (another human) unlawfully.
- To kill brutally or inhumanly.
- To put an end to; destroy
- To kill with premediated malice; to kill (a human being) willfully, deliberately, and unlawfully
- To mutilate, spoil, or deform, as if with malice or cruelty; to mangle
- unlawful premeditated killing of a human being
- A flock of crows
So, "No Murder", Sandwich. Which is it? No unlawful killings? Or no unlawful PREMEDITATED killings? Does it involve mutilation? Does it have to satsify the most strict of these (unlawful, premeditated deliberate, willful and only a human being)? I know I'm being pedantic, but I'm trying to illustrate how sticky things can be when one tries to ignores the fact that all forms of communication involve interpretation.
More importantly, by going back to an older version and translating it, you are interpretting. No language can be precisely translated into another. Nuance and meanings are subtly different. Semantic loadings of words changes from language to language. You say the original verse meant 'no murder', not 'no killing' and that the the imperitive form was implied and not stated.
When you render up your judgement to the rest of us that it really means 'no murder' and not 'Thou Shalt Not Kill', you're giving us a different interpretation than many of us were taught. After all: the Bible is the inerrant word of God (so I'm told) and whatever is written therein is God's Word, no matter what language it is in. My Grandmother's says "Thou Shalt Not Kill". If both are the Word of God, which one is correct? That's left to the reader to interpret.
What if God was saying "No flocks of crows"? ;)
-
Oh the joy of symantecs. People always forget the important factor that a word's meaning is defined by the context in which it is used.
Oh what I would give to have telepathy. It would solve many miscommunication problems.
PS - WHOHOO!!! An extra 1% for God/Jesus poll!!! I thought my vote wouldn't make a dent.
-
Originally posted by mikhael
8. A flock of crows
:wtf: :lol:
-
A Flock of Crows is called a Murder of Crows ;)
-
Hence my inclusion of it in the list of possible meanings for 'murder', Flipside. ;)
-
Unfortunately there are still many things that could not be explained by the science. We don't like empty spaces in our mind and we need to put something there. This thing is some god (written with small first letter !).
I have simply no need to worship any higher power.
If any god exists and if he (or she) is all-powerful, why he (she) wants to be prayed.
I'm for third option from the bottom.
-
The things is... if god exists, why are we not perfect?
-
Cuz humanity was gullible and messed things up. Now we're stuck with this nasty human condition that is not without remendy.
-
If humanity were perfect in the first place, they could not have messed things up. They would have been immune to temptation.
-
Didn't mean to imply that humanity was perfect at some point. But we were in a state of grace and was in perfect communion with God (yes thats a capitol "G"). We were created in His "likeness", not His perfection.
Considering for a moment the possibility that humanity was created by God to form a relation and communion with. Like all human relationships, its much more meaningful when the significant other chose to be with you rather than to do so because of lack of options. Otherwise the relationship would be empty.
-
Mik, I know, I was just saying to Goober cos he wtf'd it ;)
Possibly the imperfection was 'deliberate'. Maybe we have been given deliberate hurdles to climb over to discover who and what we are. After all, if it was easy, everyone would do it ;)
Possibly it is how we deal with these problems and whether we can become more than our own fears make us, which is what 'God' is waiting for?
As they say, it's good to have a destination, but it is the journey that makes us :)
If I believed in a persona based god, I would be of the opinion he had pushed us out of the nest and is still waiting for us to fly before we hit the ground ;)
-
Originally posted by Omniscaper
Didn't mean to imply that humanity was perfect at some point. But we were in a state of grace and was in perfect communion with God (yes thats a capitol "G"). We were created in His "likeness", not His perfection.
Considering for a moment the possibility that humanity was created by God to form a relation and communion with. Like all human relationships, its much more meaningful when the significant other chose to be with you rather than to do so because of lack of options. Otherwise the relationship would be empty.
You're splitting hairs. Why would a perfect God choose to create imperfect pets?
-
There is a small difficulty here regarding the term "perfection." In fact, it is a term that has never be satisfactorily defined in all of history. What does human perfection look like? Using the example given above, to say that the ability to choose between good and evil is an imperfection will be flatly contradicted by those who say that it is a perfection. Who is right?
There isn't a decisive answer, for one simple reason: what counts as "perfection" depends on what is being given value in a certain situation. A perfect wine glass might be one that is beautiful, or one that has no flaws in the glass, or one that is shaped to deliver the wine to the tongue in just the right way, or one that goes well with the room's decor. If free will is valuable, a perfect human being will be one who possesses that. If inability to choose evil is valuable, a perfect human being will be one who does not have free will.
It is notable that the descriptions of Adam and Eve never use the terms perfection or imperfection. The idea isn't on the radar.
-
Funny, we can apply 'perfect' to God, but we can't define it for anything else? Convenient bit of logical worming, that.
The question is one of God's perfection, not Adam and Eve's. Why would a PERFECT GOD create imperfect pets? The inference is, naturally, that Adam and Eve are anything BUT perfect. We have, should you buy into the dusty tome, a written account of just how imperfect they are.
So, rather than dodge the question by going off in some odd direction, address the question as it was asked.
-
Mik, if a question is flawed in its fundamental assumptions, then addressing it directly is often not possible and usually unhelpful. You understand that, so why not accept Sesq's counterpoint (which, btw, I agree with - Creation was described as good, not perfect)?
That said, I suppose I would ask: can something good ever forsake its goodness? Ever? That, I think, is what the Fall describes.
-
The question is not flawed. The assumptions are:
God is Perfect.
Man is not Perfect.
God made Man.
Which one of these assumptions is flawed? The question is NOT flawed in its assumptions. It is flawed in its implications. Its left as an exercise to the reader to find that flaw, describe it and use it in a rational answer to the question. Yes, its intended to be leading.
I want to respond to your statement about the Fall, but that would require getting rather deeply into my personal beliefs. I try to keep those out of the board-at-large. Sorry. :/
-
Since we're skirting the issue of Original Sin at the moment can someone answer me this one.
Adam & Eve eat from the tree of life which gave them knowledge of good and evil. Because of this God banished them.
But if they didn't know the difference between good and evil how can it have been evil to eat the apple in the first place?
-
Originally posted by mikhael
You're splitting hairs. Why would a perfect God choose to create imperfect pets?
Why would he make up perfect?
@Mik - Your logic is flawed form the beginning....
How can an unperfect beeing with his unperfect mind and superficial logic even try to explaina perfect beeing???
God is beyon science and logic...
I have my own theories:
a) Why deons't God show up and do wonders and change the world? Why did he let him/her die?
He didn't. God gave us free will, but allso the responsibility that comes with it. All of our actions have consequences.... If a drunk driver runs over someone, it's not God's will, it's the drivers stupidity.
What about natural phenomenoms? To die from lightining, flood or a brick falling on your head? Well, God created the laws of physics too, and everything in the universe follows them. It's a mtter of multiple factors and chance...not God's will...
Sure...he might interfere, but wouldn't he be trampling our freedom? Wouldn't we than expect Him to come to our aid whenever something happens that we don't like?
b) Can something god forscake it's goodenss?
Sure...look at old Lucy...didn't he turn bad to the core?
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
@Mik - Your logic is flawed form the beginning....
How can an unperfect beeing with his unperfect mind and superficial logic even try to explaina perfect beeing???
God is beyon science and logic...
I recommend going and reading my response to Steak, Trashman.
And to answer your question: just because I'm tall doesn't mean I can't imagine and understand short. Just because I'm a centrist doesn't mean I can't understand liberals and conservatives. Just becuase I don't share your faith, doesn't mean I can't understand your religion.
In short: just because I am imperfect does not mean that I cannot understand perfection.
-
kara: you're not suppose to think about that
-
The Bible was written by the same people who said Earth was flat. It doesn't have a lot of credibility in my eyes.
-
i beleive we cant take everything the bible says at face value. It was written just thousands of years ago remember, so it had to relate to the people fo the time, who were in comparison to our modern day knowledge, pretty dim. It had to make sense to the people of the time, who, as tiara said, believed the earth was flat.
after all, we KNOW the Earth wasnt created in six days, so i guess genesis was kinda a 'dummed down', simplified guide to the history of the universe in a somewhat religious context.
-
/me applauds Tiara
-
Originally posted by Jiggyhound
i beleive we cant take everything the bible says at face value. It was written just thousands of years ago remember, so it had to relate to the people fo the time, who were in comparison to our modern day knowledge, pretty dim. It had to make sense to the people of the time, who, as tiara said, believed the earth was flat.
after all, we KNOW the Earth wasnt created in six days, so i guess genesis was kinda a 'dummed down', simplified guide to the history of the universe in a somewhat religious context.
The problem with that sort of approach is that if you start saying that the bible isn't the 100% literal word of God how do you decide what was dumbed down and what was added by priests later to fit their agendas.
Originally posted by Kazan
kara: you're not suppose to think about that
I personally think that you're not meant to think about large sections of the bible. For instance the story of Job. Everyone holds that up as an example why you should be faithful to God but he comes off as an unbelievably arrogant bastard in the story.
Here's a diety who stands back and lets Satan heap abuse on Job just so he can win a bet. Why am I suddenly reminded of the movie Trading Places? :)
On top of that his idea of making things right for allowing Satan to kill all his children is just to bless him to let him have twice as many more. The same God of resurrection doesn't believe that it would be putting things right to bring the original ones back to life :rolleyes:
-
Tiara, don't go there. The Bible never taught that the Earth was flat. The Old Testament made an illustration of the Earth as rounded in Isaiah 40:22 which was written a good number of centuries ( I forget exact number) before a round earth theory was widely accepted. Its interesting that a writer would go against the popular science of the time and take the flak and redicule instead of taking the easy way and go with popular opinion science. Theres Divine revalation for ya.
If you are skeptical of its validity and believe that the Old Testament was revised over the centuries, then do a google search on the Dead Sea Scrolls. The oldest archeological find of the Word.
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
Why would he make up perfect?
@Mik - Your logic is flawed form the beginning....
How can an unperfect beeing with his unperfect mind and superficial logic even try to explaina perfect beeing???
God is beyon science and logic...
I have my own theories:
a) Why deons't God show up and do wonders and change the world? Why did he let him/her die?
He didn't. God gave us free will, but allso the responsibility that comes with it. All of our actions have consequences.... If a drunk driver runs over someone, it's not God's will, it's the drivers stupidity.
What about natural phenomenoms? To die from lightining, flood or a brick falling on your head? Well, God created the laws of physics too, and everything in the universe follows them. It's a mtter of multiple factors and chance...not God's will...
Sure...he might interfere, but wouldn't he be trampling our freedom? Wouldn't we than expect Him to come to our aid whenever something happens that we don't like?
b) Can something god forscake it's goodenss?
Sure...look at old Lucy...didn't he turn bad to the core?
A cookie to anyone who can tell where are the contradictions on this (the one quoted, not mine) post! :p :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by mikhael
Why would a perfect God choose to create imperfect pets?
There's a very simple answer to this, and I'm surprised neither Sesq. nor Setekh posted it. ;) The answer is: Why not? Romans 9:21 - "Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?"
Originally posted by karajorma
Adam & Eve eat from the tree of life which gave them knowledge of good and evil. Because of this God banished them.
But if they didn't know the difference between good and evil how can it have been evil to eat the apple in the first place?
They wouldn't have known it was evil, but they would have known that they were disobeying God. God meant for humans to live in blissful ignorance of evil and its consequences. If you're obeying God and things are going swimmingly, why do anything different?Originally posted by karajorma
The same God of resurrection doesn't believe that it would be putting things right to bring the original ones back to life :rolleyes:
Maybe he didn't mean for them to. Who can say? But this doesn't preclude good things for them in the afterlife.
-
Originally posted by Omniscaper
Tiara, don't go there. The Bible never taught that the Earth was flat. The Old Testament made an illustration of the Earth as rounded in Isaiah 40:22 which was written a good number of centuries ( I forget exact number) before a round earth theory was widely accepted. Its interesting that a writer would go against the popular science of the time and take the flak and redicule instead of taking the easy way and go with popular opinion science. Theres Divine revalation for ya.
If you are skeptical of its validity and believe that the Old Testament was revised over the centuries, then do a google search on the Dead Sea Scrolls. The oldest archeological find of the Word.
I never said trhe Bible taught that, I said it was written by people who thought the Earth was flat (or even had an end to it cause many thought Earth was all there was at that time).
But at that time theyu thought the Earth was at the center of the Universe, people would never reach the stars, that people couldn't fly, etc, etc, etc, etc...
In other words; The Bible was written by people who in my eyes were just plain ignorant and didn't bother to look further then their noses. All they needed was some "almight, omnipetent being" and no further explaination.
-
Originally posted by Tiara
I never said trhe Bible taught that, I said it was written by people who thought the Earth was flat...
Maybe they did think that, but they didn't write it in the Bible.
Moses lived as an Egyptian prince for forty years and undoubtedly learned all kinds of Egyptian science, medicine, astronomy, etc. Yet in the five books of the Bible he wrote, we find none of it. If he were making it up out of whole cloth, don't you think he would have included some of the leading knowledge of the time?
-
To be honest, round Earth theories were going around since the time of Sumeria. (pre-dating the old testament since the Biblical flood story is based off of the Sumerian flood stories) The Egyptians finally had enough proof (the whole stick and shadow length experiment) to silence the opposition.
All that the fact that the writer used the round Earth theory in the Bible proves is that he/she was well educated.
-
Originally posted by Goober5000
Moses lived as an Egyptian prince for forty years and undoubtedly learned all kinds of Egyptian science, medicine, astronomy, etc. Yet in the five books of the Bible he wrote, we find none of it.
That just shows the ignorance. He knew but yet he discards it and decides that its all up to God. :ick:
Personally, if there even is a God I think he has an alien anal probe stuck up his ass for letting such "prose" be "His word".
-
I guess popular infallible science should always get the benefit of the doubt. Like the science of a 30 years ago that suggested that pregnant women should SMOKE to keep their weight down. I give Moses credit for recognizing the flawed science spawned by a culture of polytheists. When a person gets to be in the presence of God, I think its safe to take His word over theirs.
-
To those here who are religious I'd like to ask you this...
- How can you believe/follow a "being" who you don't know anything about? Is he really going to redempt (sp?) your "soul"? And how do you know that? (please do not respond about some book, etc...)
-
Originally posted by Omniscaper
I guess popular infallible science should always get the benefit of the doubt. Like the science of a 30 years ago that suggested that pregnant women should SMOKE to keep their weight down. I give Moses credit for recognizing the flawed science spawned by a culture of polytheists. When a person gets to be in the presence of God, I think its safe to take His word over theirs.
Well smoking *does* keep the weight down, due to cancer :drevil:
Ohh yes! Polytheists are so evil and primitive! Go monotheism!!!!!!!!1111oneoneone :lol:
-
Originally posted by Omniscaper
I guess popular infallible science should always get the benefit of the doubt.
The thing about science is that it's self correcting. Anybody who takes science to be infallible is kinda missing the entire point of science.
-
Originally posted by Blaise Russel
The thing about science is that it's self correcting. Anybody who takes science to be infallible is kinda missing the entire point of science.
:nod: Unlike religion, science acknowledges it when its wrong. It amends itself. Religion tends to banter on about one thing. If someone says otherwise... BURN HERETIC! BURN!!!!
-
Originally posted by Ghostavo
To those here who are religious I'd like to ask you this...
- How can you believe/follow a "being" who you don't know anything about? Is he really going to redempt (sp?) your "soul"? And how do you know that? (please do not respond about some book, etc...)
Well, I read this book... ;)
And I've also seen people who've become Christians have their lives totally changed by it. I've seen tremendous good come out of both Christian mission organizations and Christians working around campus. I've talked to people who have been miraculously healed and who have known friends or strangers who have been miraculously healed.
Doubt me? Find a Christian you know personally (a real one, not a hypocrite :p) who's been one a while and you'll probably hear the same things. :)
-
who CLAIM to have beem miracullously healed -- what they _THINK_ and what is reality are two different things. Theists truely do suffer from a form of psychosis. They do everything possible to twist their preception to support their position because it's emotionally appealing.
I've argued with more christians than you can imagine - them just "SAYING X" doesn't mean "X IS TRUE".
You really have no real proof of him and yet you claim to - intellectual dishonesty at it's finest
-
I didn't ask about the christians themselves... that I can easily see for myself (my country is 99% Roman Catholic (sp?) last time I checked!!)
What I did ask was about god himself, how can someone truly know god is... well... good for one thing... how do you know he is not the "devil"? (I'm not asking about the christian religion, but religions in general) How can you trust god without having any knowledge about him?
-
The reason for a lack of perfect world, i believe is widely explained by the existance of free will.
-
Originally posted by Zeronet
The reason for a lack of perfect world, i believe is widely explained by the existance of free will.
No, the simple reason is that perfection doesn't exist.
-
Originally posted by Goober5000
They wouldn't have known it was evil, but they would have known that they were disobeying God. God meant for humans to live in blissful ignorance of evil and its consequences. If you're obeying God and things are going swimmingly, why do anything different?
Yeah but if they didn't know right from wrong how would they know that eating the apple (and therefore disobeying God) was bad.
For that matter why did God leave the tree lying about in the first place unless getting them to eat from it was part of his plan.
I might tell kids not to eat cookies from the cookie jar but if I've got half a brain I know that putting the cookie jar away where they can't reach it is a good idea.
I've never understood how anyone can believe that getting Adam and Eve to eat from the tree wasn't planned all along.
Originally posted by Goober5000
Maybe he didn't mean for them to. Who can say? But this doesn't preclude good things for them in the afterlife.
This is why I say he comes off as a bit of a bastard. He allows Satan do whatever he wants so he can win his bet and afterwards he doesn't even bother to put right what Satan made wrong. He acts with total disregard for the results of his inaction.
-
@Mik - You can understand God?
Mik, You can even define pefection! (You have no reference point, since NOTHING in this world is perfect and definitions aren't valid as negations - i.e., "pefect is everything that is not unperfect" is not a valid definition).
A mind that created the whole universe if far beyond anyones understanding...
@Ghostavo
- There are no contradictions there... Read it again!
- Well, look at it this way...If there is a God, then I'll go to heaven, if there isn't, then I'm at least doing some good becouse of my religion....
I'll take beliving in afterlife over beliving in nothingness
(except beeing worm-food at the end) any day!
@Tiara -
Religion admitts it's wrong in it's actions sometimes, but never in it's teachings, for they are not wrong...and science can't prove them wrong...
And that heretic thing is mostly gone (except in some radical countries)
@Kaz - There have been miracoaulus healings... Vatican is very strict about those things and a whole Gathering of surgeons, doctors and specialist is consulted before proclaiming a healing a miracle. The Pope himself is living proof of that.
Doctors are saying he should have been completely paralyzed or dead for years now...
And...Kaz...you have no proof of the opposite either...
@kajorama - Adam and Eve are symbolic...get over it...
And why bring people back to life when they're better off in paradise?
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
@Tiara -
Religion admitts it's wrong in it's actions sometimes, but never in it's teachings, for they are not wrong...and science can't prove them wrong...
And that heretic thing is mostly gone (except in some radical countries)
Eh, sociological studies prove the teachings wrong day by day. But to explain that it'd take time. I'll write that up when its not after midnight :p
Eh, the heretic thing was just a figure of speech. What I meant was that anyone disagreeing with them are considered to be "bad". Some forms of Christian religion even say non-believers will go to hell.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
For that matter why did God leave the tree lying about in the first place unless getting them to eat from it was part of his plan.
He wanted them to choose whether or not to obey him. If the tree wasn't in the garden there would have been no opportunity to make a choice.Originally posted by Kazan
who CLAIM to have beem miracullously healed -- what they _THINK_ and what is reality are two different things
A good friend of mine knew somebody with a really serious back problem. He wasn't able to lift heavy objects and when he walked he could only do so with great pain. He was healed when the two of them went to ministry school and now he can run around and play backyard football. Are you saying he had to have imagined that? :)
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
@kajorama - Adam and Eve are symbolic...get over it...
If you don't believe in them fine. Your choice. Not all christians interpret the bible the way you do though. I want to hear the answer of some one who does believe they were real. Otherwise I wouldn't even pose the question.
Originally posted by TrashMan
And why bring people back to life when they're better off in paradise?
Jesus did it didn't he? Besides if you're using that arguement why doesn't God just wipe out everyone and be done with it?
-
TrashMan: Not having evidence to the countrary is not evidence for -- you must have evidence for something _PERIOD_ for it to be rational to belief in it.
You have no evidence - and not all "surgeons" are all they're rumped up to be - you can get a religiously insane surgeon to sign off.
-
Originally posted by Goober5000
He wanted them to choose whether or not to obey him. If the tree wasn't in the garden there would have been no opportunity to make a choice.
And the mortal sin of temptation was created by the hand of God himself :p
-
TrashMan, first you say that god is beyond science and logic and that no mortal can possibly come even a bit close to understanding him, but then you engage on a discussion about how religion understands god and how you got proof and other things, then you tell that god created the laws of physics and that he uses them to operate in the world... if you still think there are no contradictions, please rethink your ideas...
-
Knowing God and knowing about God are two entirely different things. It's impossible to know and understand God. It's entirely possible to know about Him.
What I don't understand is how you people can be content with believing a completely bogus idea. Big bang, for example. Where did that mass come from that exploded? Existed forever? Anything that exists forever can not change, a simple law. So, by exploding, that mass changed. And something can not be created out of nothing, without some external force. If nothing ever existed, than how in hell did this universe come to exist?
And whatever it is, there has to be something eternal. The universe came from something, or its in some continual time loop that some people believe. I don't understand why people would want to believe that, though. It's like saying you don't have a purpose in life.
-
You mean like believing in god? :D
Actually, from what I understand about the theory, matter and anti-matter was created in that instant... matter had something which I can't pronounce in english but I assume it is correct to say that it outlasted anti-matter which then when the universe calmed down there was much more matter than anti-matter and... here we are!! :D
-
Originally posted by DragonClaw
What I don't understand is how you people can be content with believing a completely bogus idea. Big bang, for example. Where did that mass come from that exploded? Existed forever?
The EXACT same thing can be said for god.
And whatever it is, there has to be something eternal. The universe came from something, or its in some continual time loop that some people believe. I don't understand why people would want to believe that, though. It's like saying you don't have a purpose in life.
:wtf: You ****ting me right? You actually believe that pile of donkey-on-spacecrack **** you just produced? :wtf:
-
I'm a Christian, but just a correction, the Big Bang does go on forever it collapses and the blows again. tho, its my faith in God when I say I don't believe in these theories, that were not smart enough to figure it out, as Mel Gibson once said.
On your case it would be able to put it "what started the Big Bang":)
-
Oh forgot to say something, knowing about god and understanding him are the same in my previous question, as how could have you come to those conclusions if you don't know him entirely? You can't say you know or understand him, so...
-
OH and forgot to mention one thing, NOTHING MAKES SENSE , NOTHING, NOTHING, NOTHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!
AND YOUR NOT SMART ENOUGH TO ANSWER!!!!!!!!!!!!!! well I have said that.
-
Originally posted by Tiara
The EXACT same thing can be said for god.
What? The bogus part? Or the eternal part?
Bogus: It's far more believable in my opinion than some BS logic concerning a random explosion that generated an orderly system of existance.
Eternal: Yes, I do believe God is eternal and unchanging. The Bible says so itself on a repetitive basis.
Originally posted by Tiara
:wtf: You ****ting me right? You actually believe that pile of donkey-on-spacecrack **** you just produced? :wtf:
I fail to see what you find irrational.
Originally posted by jdjtcagle
I'm a Christian, but just a correction, the Big Bang does go on forever it collapses and the blows again.
Yes, that's what I was referring to when I said 'continual time loop'.
You will not, and never find, solid proof of a God, or the lack of a God. That is why it's a faith issue. If you choose not to believe, than that is fine for you. Although I'd personally rather have insurance.
And I can say I know about God because of what He has revealed of Himself.
-
Who said anything about big crunch? The universe doesn't have enough mass which by proof I give you that the velocity betwen galaxies is increasing so, it is not going to happen... sorry.
And how do you know god is who he supposedly tells you he is?
-
What I don't understand is how you people can be content with believing a completely bogus idea. God, for example. Where did God come from? Existed forever?
-
Originally posted by Ghostavo
Who said anything about big crunch? The universe doesn't have enough mass which by proof I give you that the velocity betwen galaxies is increasing so, it is not going to happen... sorry.
And how do you know god is who he supposedly tells you he is?
AAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
NOBODY ****ING KNOWS AND NEVER WILL.
this bickering is pointless!!:mad:
-
Originally posted by Tiara
And the mortal sin of temptation was created by the hand of God himself :p
Not at all. Allowing for the opportunity of something to take place and actually causing it are two entirely different things.Originally posted by Bobboau
What I don't understand is how you people can be content with believing a completely bogus idea. God, for example. Where did God come from? Existed forever?
And the pendulum swings the other way. :) But the difference in this case is that God has existed forever. He exists from eternity past to eternity future and he doesn't change. Q.E.D.
-
Originally posted by jdjtcagle
AAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
NOBODY ****ING KNOWS AND NEVER WILL.
this bickering is pointless!!:mad:
Precisely my sentiments, although you could have put the idea forth in a more formal manner.
I will not respond to Bobboau's post largely because it has already been addressed previously.
And I don't know that God is who He says He is. That's why it's faith. If one honestly knew God, than there would be no such thing as faith. There hardly would even be choice. I have found sufficient support for my own belief.
-
If you want to believe this life is all the following
pointless
miserable
no hope
whats the pint inafuture if its going to end tomorrow
You see this is why the world is so bitter they don't have anyone to believe in.
To quote a movie (matrix)
What is real, if it is what you can see and touch, and smell.
then all real is, is nerves sending signals to your brain. cant remember the exact dialogue but you get the Jiff
-
well then why is it so insane to beleve in what he is saying that we beleive in?
-
It's not insane at all...
Either is my believe...
Only thing I said was that these questions has NO ANSWERS, reall read over the things I posted, Thats all I was saying
-
well, DragonClaw seems to think so, so I want to hear his reasoning
-
its simple he's telling you from his point of believe , which is only right through is believes and not what you can see
-
All I'll say is that if God appeared to me and said...
'Yes. the Bible is my words, and I want you all to have wars over me.' I wouldn't be converted, in fact, it would probably take about half the heavenly choir to restrain me from kicking him in the balls.
-
I hate the BIBLE
it can't be perfect it was created by Humans
The New Testament in some parts contridicts itself
And if God told the People to right something down back then they would of left it out because they didn't know what the hell he was talking about.
I believe there was a GOD until we killed him on the CROSS!!!
-
As you can see, I'm the most different Christian you've ever seen.
I don't listen to preachers, I try to find the truth.
the only person you can trust in this world is yourself
-
Originally posted by Goober5000
There's a very simple answer to this, and I'm surprised neither Sesq. nor Setekh posted it. ;) The answer is: Why not? Romans 9:21 - "Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?"
SWEET. Someone found it. :)
Whilst the potter can indeed choose to make a some pottery for noble purpose and some for common, how can the potter fault the common pottery for being common and not noble?
-
Bobboau: I believe it is bogus because by believing that, you are saying your life is pointless. It serves no higher purpose. Great move, no?
jdjtcagle: The Bible, the new Testament in particular, is just people's interpretation of what God has shown/revealed of Himself to them. I would, however, be interested to know where the New Testament contradicts itself though, so please post a few verses. I'd enjoy that.
-
post soon
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
@Mik - You can understand God?
Mik, You can even define pefection! (You have no reference point, since NOTHING in this world is perfect and definitions aren't valid as negations - i.e., "pefect is everything that is not unperfect" is not a valid definition).
A mind that created the whole universe if far beyond anyones understanding...
You seem to have a basic misconception about semantic dualism. One cannot describe evil without referencing good. There can be no sensible idea of light without dark. Left has no meaning without right. Forward does not exist without a balancing conception of backward. Without up, down isn't possible. The description of any one of these concepts implicitly explains the paired concept. In other words, because we understand imperfection, we must understand perfection.
Actually, I can show you one perfect example of perfection: mathematics. Math is universal. It is absolute. It doesn't--and cannot--change from person to person, nation to nation, planet to planet or galaxy to galaxy. 2 always follows 1. 3 always follows 2. It is entirely internally consistent and almost entirely self describing.
Further, whilst the world may not contain anything physical that is 'perfect', that does not stop anyone from understanding perfection. One can easily understand the concept of a 'perfect' crystal lattice, or perfect packing (button objects into another object). Physics is full of description of perfection, and lists of places where ideal, perfect solutions have to be adjusted to take into account reality.
Finally, we MUST be able to concieve of perfection and to define it. Without such a conception of perfection, it would be utterly, completely (dare I say perfectly?) meaningless to declare God to be perfect.
-
Ok...
this is not all of them but only the ones that come off the top of my head.
1. Mistranslation was a big part of what I meant by contradictions tho, did you know that Moses didn't cross the in old testament, Did you know that Moses didn't cross the RED sea it was actually the reed sea
2. One apostle talks of Jesus's arrest to be in a Garden while another speaks of it by a tree next to something or such. So I guess that means under a Tree in a garden by something or such, or does it??
More later
Ok... Found these
3. Who was at the Empty Tomb? Is it:
MAT 28:1 In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.
MAR 16:1 And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him.
JOH 20:1 The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.
4.How long was Jesus in the tomb?
Depends where you look; Matthew 12:40 gives Jesus prophesying that he will spend "three days and three nights in the heart of the earth", and Mark 10:34 has "after three days (meta treis emeras) he will rise again". As far as I can see from a quick look, the prophecies have "after three days", but the post-Resurrection narratives have "on the third day".
5. What did they give him to drink?
vinegar - Matthew 27:34
wine with myrrh - Mark 15:23
6. What was the color of the robe placed on Jesus during his trial?
scarlet - Matthew 27:28
purple John 19:2
Is this enough??
-
Well??
There is more
-
This topics on fire. Again.
-
Reguarding supposed "contradictions"
http://www.rationalchristianity.net/143contrad.html
The different writings of those books merely complements/supplements each other. Any smart gatherer of different writings would easily have seen such contradictions and would have purposely left out contradicting writings. Yet these books are still put together because of what was really seen and analyzed as complementary.
Its so easy to take words out of its context without carefull analysis of what was being said. There is historical context, specific perspectives, and perhaps others that are being disreguarded. Analyze the text before making such rash judgements.
For me, Christianity is not as BLIND a faith as people make it out to be. To me its a reasonable faith. Jesus presented the 2 greatest Commandments that supercede the 10 Commandments of the Old Testament.
Jesus said: "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy MIND. This is the great and first commandment. And a second like unto it is this, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself" (Matt. 22:35-39).
Don't underestimate the inclusion of MIND in that first and greatest commandment. That means there are rational aspects that could be understood, since we were made with a rational mind.
-
DragonClaw: so if how cool an exciteing your beliefs about the origins of humanity are the test of it's validity then may I welcome you to The Church of Scientology (www.scientology.org) "Never regret yesterday. Life is in you today, and you make your tomorrow!".
it's got Christianity beat solid, it has space ships, and evil galactic dictators, and all of humanity are supernatural super powered gods capable of bending reality to there will if only they would pay the church to teach them how to do it, don't let emporor Xanu win! it is your glorius desteny!!!
-
To DC:A sad sad life must be for those who only think about "afterlife"...
And so by saying you are slaves to god is that any better?
What most of you don't realise is that instead of having a "god" making up that purpose, one can think for himself and take his own decisions about his life (make up his purpose himself).
-
That still doesn't remove the fact that once you die, you're dead.
Was browsing around on this site and found this:
Originally found on scientology.org
But because man is basically good he is capable of spiritual betterment, and it is the goal of Scientology to bring him to a point where he is capable of sorting out the factors in his own life and solving his own problems.
That really turns me off, you know. Anyone who thinks he's 'basically good' is one twisted person. Makes sense that egoists would refuse to believe that there is a Higher Being.
These New Age religions really fit the culture these days. It's really the only reason they even have followers. It's all about "me". The advancement of the "self". "I" am better off. "I" understand "myself" better.
And it's hardly being a slave to God when your know you truly enjoy it.
-
Isn't it what every ****ing religion is all about? "me"?
"YOU shall not..."
And it's hardly being a slave to God when your know you truly enjoy it.
:wtf: :D
-
you didn't actualy click that link did you...
oh you're ****ed now, get your 12 gage reddy cause the scientologists will be comeing for you soon
anyway, so saying that you are 'Gods specal creature' doesn't sound at all like the mind novacane there selling?
"once you die, you're dead."
yup no heaven no hell only a level of nothing that the human mind is generaly incapable of comprehending.
"And it's hardly being a slave to God when your know you truly enjoy it."
:lol:
-
Well, that's where you are wrong. I suggest you research Christianity a little more.
Bob: Yes... and that state of nothing has no connection with what you did with your life before. In other words, your life is pointless.
-
I went to a catholic highschool for four years, I have had quite enough 'research'
nice people, and good environment, but illogical belefes
-
what if your life is pointless, then why is it so important to beleve there is a point if there is none?
-
DragonClaw
What most of you don't realise is that instead of having a "god" making up that purpose, one can think for himself and take his own decisions about his life (make up his purpose himself).
-
If I'm wrong, and there is no God, than I won't care after I'm dead. "State of nothingness."
If I'm right, and there is God. Than you're in a pile of ****.
I hardly consider Catholicism a real bible-based religion. It doesn't even follow Jesus' teaching. Catholics worship Mary and Saints, where Jesus Himself instructed not to worship anyone but God.
Making up your own purpose for life doesn't make it a real purpose. What is your purpose in life? To get a million dollars? Oh, that'll help you.
-
Scientology... What a great mix of eastern religion and psuedo science. I just read up on it and I found it quite entertaining. Its interesting how Christianity is in constant ridicule for it's supposed baseless belief system, yet Scientology, under the guise of science and mental health, doesn't seem to get as much flak for its occult activities.
I have to admit that I found that their story makes great science fiction. I put it third in my list. The Matrix being the 1st, Dark City being 2nd.
-
but if Muhamid Akbar over there were both in for a realy warm afterlife.
if what you beleve turns out to be a pile of **** then what you have is basicly you makeing up your own purpose in life, and "Making up your own purpose for life doesn't make it a real purpose".
honestly I don't care if you beleve the same thing as me becase as you said there is nothing to gain and everything to loose, but from my perspective I can only be pleasently suprized, the day I die I wake up in hell I'll be like "woo hoo! an afterlife! I was wrong! alright! well hellow there Cerberus! isn't it a glorius day in Hell!"
just becase something is better doesn't mean it's true..er
-
Making up your own purpose for life doesn't make it a real purpose. What is your purpose in life? To get a million dollars? Oh, that'll help you.
And god giving you one counts as one? :D
I didn't say anything to espect such a "materialistic answer" but I will answer it none the less...
Example, I want my purpose in life to be giving humanity a propulsion system which will enable mankind to finally reach for the stars!! :nervous:
Unrealistic you might say, but then again, you can't really use that argument given that... hehe... you know... :lol:
-
Oh, yes, and once mankind blows itself up, your investment has done a lot.
And Bob, if you are fine with eternal suffering, power to ya!
-
Oh, yes, and once mankind blows itself up, your investment has done a lot.
I have confidence that after mankind blows up only those who don't deserve Darwin Awards will be alive. :D
Either way, I chose my purpose, what happens after that is irrelevant, you of all people should know this, see your own religion for signs of it.
-
Originally posted by Omniscaper
Scientology... What a great mix of eastern religion and psuedo science. I just read up on it and I found it quite entertaining. Its interesting how Christianity is in constant ridicule for it's supposed baseless belief system, yet Scientology, under the guise of science and mental health, doesn't seem to get as much flak for its occult activities.
Dude. Scientology is probably the most attacked 'religion' on the planet these days--and they fight back with all the weight of their considerable bank accounts. You really need to read more. The only people who consider Scientology legitimate are scientologists.
I suggest a good place to start learning just how THOROUGHLY scientology is screwed up would be http://www.xenu.com/
Head on over. They've got links by the million.
Oh, and Christianity isn't baseless. Its just hard to reconcile for some of us. No one is ridiculing you. We (or at least those of us who are discussing things calmly and rationally) just want to understand your belief, or help you understand ours. That's how people grow.
-
SHUT THE **** UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ALL OF YOU
YOU MAKE ME SICK
God's slaves:wtf:
People's ignorance on subjects they no nothing about
how could you persuade another person to belief something you no nothing about.
If you don't believe in God
If you don't believe there was a man named Jesus that came to earth and died on the cross!!!
then how could you possibly know what it's like to have a God, be blessed by god!!
WE KILLED GOD!!!!!!!!!!!
Humans, doesn't that make you sick
We killed him and your going to blame him for your calamities
I sin everyday, I curse, Drugs with my friends, my family is in constant struggle. The first day I believed in God he touched me, I could feel he hand touch my back and the truth is I didn't stop crying for three days straight.
Good-Bye to this thread
-
Dude: keep it civil.
This thread has gone for a good long time with degenerating into stupidity. If you've got an case to make, make the case calmly and rationally, please.
The whole discussion loses its value if you start flaming. That goes for everyone else.
-
Originally posted by Ghostavo
Who said anything about big crunch? The universe doesn't have enough mass which by proof I give you that the velocity betwen galaxies is increasing so, it is not going to happen... sorry.
And how do you know god is who he supposedly tells you he is?
Isn't the current theory on the death of the universe a slow death, with all the complex systems such as planets and galaxies breaking down into their component particles?
-
That's the Big Freeze model, GW. basically everything ends up seeking the lowest possible energy state, which is a homeostatic universe hovering just shy of absolute zero (AKA: heat death).
There are three broad classes of current theory that sprang from general relativity:
1. heat death (the universe has too little mass to stop its own expansion and does what I described above)
2. Big Crunch (the universe has too much mass and sucks itself straight back into a singularity)
3. Steady State (the universe has exactly enough mass to stop expanding and not contract and stays in a happy equilibrium)
Of course, option 3 is just a variation of option 1, since the Second Law of Thermodynamics will cause the steady state to decay.
-
Originally posted by DragonClaw
Bobboau: I believe it is bogus because by believing that, you are saying your life is pointless. It serves no higher purpose. Great move, no?
Weee... Ignorance to the point of stupidity! :rolleyes:
I don't believe in God but I still have a purpose in life. My purpose is to live my life as I want to. I am already living in heaven. My heaven. If I die, so be it. Everything has to end and so do I. I simply accept that fact.
The only thing in my life that serves no purpose is death itself.
(I dunno how I came up with that but I like that sentence! :p Into the siggy! :D)
The only thing you say is that you have a different purpose in life. It truly sickens me that you would consider being a slave to god's will is the only purpose in life. :ick: If there is only one purpose in life, life would trule be meaningless.
Ow, and: It's YOUR god, YOUR rules, YOU burn in hell.
-
Tiara, your opinion is well respected. However, is it not clear that if such a God existed, that ruled the entire universe and upheld its own existence, then if It decided to put something into effect, it would affect not only those who believe it to be happening, but those who do not believe it to be happening? (Depending on the nature of the action.) Therefore, the statement that this God is now your 'own' does not negate its possible effect on you. What would negate that effect is if said God were false, non-existent or misunderstood, none of which has much to do with who actually believes in the God or not. :)
-
Ow, I do not exclude the possibility of there being some Vorlon-like uber being :p As someone who believes in science I keep my mind open to any unproven possibility. But as long as it isn't proven or even indicated in the least bit, it doesn't exist for me. Period.
Also, if poeple like to think their fate lies in the hands of someone else I won't stop them. It just isn't a very nice prospect on life for me. I control my own life and my own fate.
-
Originally posted by Tiara
Also, if poeple like to think their fate lies in the hands of someone else I won't stop them. It just isn't a very nice prospect on life for me. I control my own life and my own fate.
Ah, of course. :yes: I do wonder, though, how much of our life do we actual control? Are you willing to concede that great areas of your life, like your place of birth, the way your parents raised you, and unforseen events - like car accidents! - are not under your control?
-
Originally posted by Setekh
Ah, of course. :yes: I do wonder, though, how much of our life do we actual control? Are you willing to concede that great areas of your life, like your place of birth, the way your parents raised you, and unforseen events - like car accidents! - are not under your control?
Place of birth: Thats not my life. My parents decided that. It was their choice to have me in the first place.
Unforseen events: Duh, I control my life, not the future ;)
-
What about the future of your life? ;)
-
Originally posted by Setekh
What about the future of your life? ;)
I learn from the past, control the present to influence the future ;)
-
you wern't born were you were born,
someone was born were you were born who became you.
:)
-
Originally posted by DragonClaw
If I'm wrong, and there is no God, than I won't care after I'm dead. "State of nothingness."
If I'm right, and there is God. Than you're in a pile of ****.
Pascal's wager is not a good way to decide these things. It's always brought up by the religious but it's a very poor arguement.
1) What if there is a god who is not your god?
Even if their is a God there is a good possibility it's not your God. In which case you go into the lake of fire too. In fact the God might be more pissed off at people who choose the wrong faith than people who had none at all.
2) You assume that there is no cost to being religious
But there is. If one life is all you get then being religious is a huge waste of your time.
Every second you spent praying was a waste of time as was every moment you spent in church.
Every time you didn't sleep with your girlfriend cause God told you not to was a lost opportunity.
If you crippled your finances having lots of children you couldn't afford because you weren't allowed to use protection then you ended up living a more miserable life than you would have without God. Same is true if you didn't leave your shrew of a wife only because you promised to stay together to God.
If you contracted parkinson's disease and suffered needlessly from a disease that would have been cured had religious people like yourself not blocked stem cell research then again you've wasted part of the only life you get.
There is most definately a cost to being religious if God doesn't exist.
Put all that together and suddenly Pascal's wager looks like a worse bet. Lets restate it from an atheists point of view
1)If there isn't a God and I don't believe in him I've lost nothing.
2)If there isn't a god and I believe in one I've wasted at least a part of my life.
3)If there is a god but I don't believe in him (either cause I don't believe in that particular god or cause I don't believe in any gods) I'm in the ****
4)If there is a god and it's my god I'm in heaven but only if I've led a good life
Stated that way the wager is now more even. The debate now is back to whether or not god exists since Pascal's Wager has proved to be completely unreliable. The more proof of god's existance there is the better an idea it is to believe in him. Unfortunately there is no proof of his existance at all.
NB I didn't even need to include point 5)
If there is a god and I only believe in him cause I'm trying to win Pascal's wager I'm still going to hell.
-
Originally posted by mikhael
Funny, we can apply 'perfect' to God, but we can't define it for anything else? Convenient bit of logical worming, that.
The question is one of God's perfection, not Adam and Eve's. Why would a PERFECT GOD create imperfect pets? The inference is, naturally, that Adam and Eve are anything BUT perfect. We have, should you buy into the dusty tome, a written account of just how imperfect they are.
So, rather than dodge the question by going off in some odd direction, address the question as it was asked.
You misunderstand me. What I am saying is that "perfection" by itself is an empty concept, just like "better". In any and every case where someone says "X is perfect", it is legitimate to ask "X is perfectly what?" Usually the "what" is implied in the context, but not always.
This is my essential point about the question "Why would a perfect God make imperfect pets?" To answer that question, I have to grant that human were made were imperfect. I will not grant that, and so I cannot answer the question. Instead, I can only say that there is a difference between our respective understandings of what counts as imperfection or not in this case.
You see the ability to choose one's actions freely to be an imperfection, I disagree. The difference lies in what we are valuing in this situation.
From the Christian perspective, humanity's God-given purpose is to be in true, loving communion with God. This entails that humans be able to freely choose whether to be in said communion. Thus, lack of free will would be an imperfection in human beings. (And indeed, it is common Christian teaching to say that our will is no longer free the way it once was, now that we are sinful). That humanity is now imperfect (i.e. is no longer fulfilling its purpose properly) is a change.
From an atheist perspective, it only makes sense that God, who is all-powerful, would design his creation in such a way that there would never, ever, ever be a possibility that it would not do what he wanted. If that is our assumption, then of course free will is an imperfection.
But this assumption that one with power would cling to it is exactly the one that Christianity rails against in a multitde of ways all the time. Christians are to live in mutual submission and self-surrender, even as Christ, God incarnate, lived in submission and self-surrender to/for us, in keeping with the purpose of God for this whole creation. He is king, but a king who grants freedom--real, free-to-choose-your-own-way freedom--to his people.
But if this is the case, the operative assumption in your argument (i.e. "God is Perfect," "Man is not Perfect," and "God made Man" are incompatible statements) is undermined.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
Since we're skirting the issue of Original Sin at the moment can someone answer me this one.
Adam & Eve eat from the tree of life which gave them knowledge of good and evil. Because of this God banished them.
But if they didn't know the difference between good and evil how can it have been evil to eat the apple in the first place?
This reflects a difference in meaning between the English and the Hebrew. The Hebrew term and the English do not map onto one another precisely.
Essentially, the Hebrew yada' indicates a close, experiential knowledge, whereas the English know is usually much more cognitive and abstract. Hada'at tov vara' could be translated equally well as "experience of good and evil". That they had not had knowledge of evil doesn't mean they were unaware of its possibility, but of what it would feel like.
-
So why is experience bad?
-
id just like to toss something into the debate
if there is fate and destiny, surely freewill becomes irrelavent, as our actions are predetermined and we have no real control over our lives.
Thus, freewill is an illusion?
I never really believed in fate, yet there are such things as predictions for the future in the bible, and if correct WILL happen whether we like it or not.
Maybe freewill is apparent on the small scale (ie: i make a predetermined decision to clap my hands right now) yet in the larger scheme of things we have no real control. So, what is freewill exactly?
Now if we take religion and God out of the equation, everything becomes much simpler. There is no longer room for conflict and contradictions. So when occums razor is applied to the debate, surely many of the premises about existence set down by religion are false.
Ergo, iam inclined to think that we cannot possibly begin to comprehend an existence beyond our own, and we are surely wrong about the majority of what we believe. Thus iam agnostic, and only trust what we can prove about the universe - ie: science. However iam sure that one day we will have the majority of answers to existence, not the whys, but the hows. even today there is evidence and theoretical physics being formed about the continued existence of the human consciousness after death - an afterlife for lack of a better term. What it is like though, we cannot begin to possibly comprehend, being that it involves a degree of quatum physics, something we find hard to make heads or tails of even in simpler contexts.
So, maybe death is only the beggining, and our existence trancends many levels of the universe. Its all very complicated if you ask me, something that i think is best just to have our own ideas on, not base entire beliefs and systems of worship around.
-
@ Mik - right....I did jump the gun a bit there...
Good & Evil, Right & Left, U & Down all exist in this world and therefore can be understood. Pefection doesn't (and Math isn't perfect...)
But I meant that in PHILOSOPHYCAL TERMS one cannot define one term with the nagation of another (I had friggin philosophy...)
What is perfect? We think we understand it, we have a general idea, but the true meaning of it escapes us...
@Kajorama - I don't see the time I spend praying or going to church a waste of time, even if there isn't a God... It's YOU who see that. I spend time with good people and enjoy it...
And quality of life DOES NOT EQUAL money..
REasearc shows that the happiest people on Earth are poor people and some tribes...
-
and Math isn't perfect...
:wtf:
And quality of life DOES NOT EQUAL money..
Is it just you or do every religious person think all atheists care about is money?
REasearc shows that the happiest people on Earth are poor people and some tribes...
Define the term happy and tell me how can you quantify and qualitify the happiness of someone. :p
-
In fact, I came to the conclusion when I was on mushrooms that Math is one of the most pure and beautiful things on the planet because almost anything can be described in a mathematical equation, I may hate the subject and not have a head for numbers but I can understand it's importance.
-
Pay attention Trashman. I wasn't bashing Christianity or saying it's a waste of time. I was saying that Pascal's Wager is poor logic and explaining why. Even most christians must agree that the arguement is deeply flawed.
Originally posted by TrashMan
@Kajorama - I don't see the time I spend praying or going to church a waste of time, even if there isn't a God... It's YOU who see that. I spend time with good people and enjoy it...
If you didn't go to church you could spend that time talking to those good people and going on picnics rather than sitting in a draughty old building being spoken at. Surely if there was no God that would be a better way to spend that time. If there was no God why not simply form a social club so you can meet the same people.
Sure if there is a god the time is well spent but if their isn't why would you want to sit still for an hour and have someone talk to you about someone who doesn't exist every week?
Originally posted by TrashMan
And quality of life DOES NOT EQUAL money..
REasearc shows that the happiest people on Earth are poor people and some tribes...
Who said it did? I was pointing out the fact that if you believe in religion you lose your free will in many situations. For instance you can't decide to only have two children if you're a roman catholic. You'll have as many as your wife cranks out before the menopause hits her.
Quite often the reason why people decide to have only two children is because they know that's all they can afford and maintain the standard of life they want to have.
I'm not saying lots of kids is bad. I'm not saying being poor is bad. I'm simply saying you've lost your choice in the matter. Again if God exists and he determines how many kids you have then it's fine to leave it up to him to decide how blessed you are with kids but if there is no God then you're basically throwing away all your choice in the matter in favour of just letting biology decide.
-
jdjtcagle: because some of us a recovered lunatics
You are acting like a five year old [or any theist when their baseless beliefs are threatened]
You and your ilk sicken me, hopelessly addicted to a set of pleasent lies.
Touched you in your mind you weak minded fool.
[I have lost ALL tolerance of theists in this world and the time for ruthlessness approaches swifter than I would like]
-
The cost of religion is high, unacceptably high.
It is the total loss of all intellectual integrity. You give up your quest for knowledge in turn for the quick, emotionally appealing answer. It is the total and complete failure of rationality.
What do most of you do then? Try and push your religion on others, try and violate people's civil rights because your god tells you to, invade other countries because god tells you to, take advantage of your fellow human beings because god tells you to, murder people because god tells you to, ad nausem
-
Kazan, have it your way, man. I'm sorry I flipped out, just ignore it. Your words mean nothing to me, so don't try convincing me.
-
Kazan, if I thought you were an example of (the effects of) a completely aetheistic society, I'd start making block bookings at the local church.
-
Surely you'd say the exact opposite of a man who kills unquestioningly as a result of his faith, without any other cause?
-
-agrees with kazan to a degree-
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
Math isn't perfect...)
Care to back that up with logical argument?
Originally posted by Sesquipedalian
You misunderstand me. What I am saying is that "perfection" by itself is an empty concept, just like "better". In any and every case where someone says "X is perfect", it is legitimate to ask "X is perfectly what?" Usually the "what" is implied in the context, but not always.
Perfection by itself is meaningless. It requires imperfection to have meaning (as I explained to Trashman).
This is my essential point about the question "Why would a perfect God make imperfect pets?" To answer that question, I have to grant that human were made were imperfect. I will not grant that, and so I cannot answer the question. Instead, I can only say that there is a difference between our respective understandings of what counts as imperfection or not in this case.
You see the ability to choose one's actions freely to be an imperfection, I disagree. The difference lies in what we are valuing in this situation.
Actually, I don't see free will as imperfection. Your following statements are predicated on your misunderstanding of my understanding. We are actually in accord here: free will is not imperfection. I will address your statements in this light.
From the Christian perspective, humanity's God-given purpose is to be in true, loving communion with God. This entails that humans be able to freely choose whether to be in said communion. Thus, lack of free will would be an imperfection in human beings. (And indeed, it is common Christian teaching to say that our will is no longer free the way it once was, now that we are sinful). That humanity is now imperfect (i.e. is no longer fulfilling its purpose properly) is a change.
For one's will to be free, one's decisions must be informed. A thought experiment: assume that there are two ways to do some task. The task must be done. We decide that the simple straightforward process to perform this task is 'wrong' (we'll assign it a value of 0) and the slightly obtuse, more roundabout way is 'right' (we'll assign it a value of 1). Now, we put a reasonably rational person into the experiment and tell them to perform the task and accumlate the highest score. We don't tell them any of the scoring rules. Which method do you think the person will take to perform the task? Obviously, the person will take the simple, straightforward way, and end up with a score of 0.
The subject of this little experiment does not really have 'free will', only an illusion of it. We've set up a situation in which we can be reasonably assured that, from ignorance, the person will 'choose' the path that leads to the lowest score.
From an atheist perspective, it only makes sense that God, who is all-powerful, would design his creation in such a way that there would never, ever, ever be a possibility that it would not do what he wanted. If that is our assumption, then of course free will is an imperfection.
You are mistaken. The refutation of your point is found in the thought experiment above, if only by implication. From the non-theist perspective (not 'atheist'. One does not have to be an atheist to disagree with the dogma you are defending), there's another course. To countervail their basic nature, all God has to do is give his pets an understanding of the consequences of their actions ahead of time. Assuming a perfect and all powerful God, it is not unreasonably to assume that He could instill within His pets enough knowledge to provide a balance to temptation. In that manner, free would truly would be free: the possibility of choosing the wrong choice still exists, but the participant knows the rules of the game.
But if this is the case, the operative assumption in your argument (i.e. "God is Perfect," "Man is not Perfect," and "God made Man" are incompatible statements) is undermined.
My prior statements show that your assertion about my assumptions are incorrect. My statement stands.
-
Originally posted by Kalfireth
Surely you'd say the exact opposite of a man who kills unquestioningly as a result of his faith, without any other cause?
me? yep, sure.
I have no love for religion - it's just that Kazan's bigotry and lack of respect never fails to annoy me.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
So why is experience bad?
To experience evil, to live it, go through it, be touched by it, harmed by it--this is bad. Before deciding to disobey, human beings had only experienced goodness. So it isn't experience per se that is bad, it is what they experienced.
-
Originally posted by Kalfireth
Surely you'd say the exact opposite of a man who kills unquestioningly as a result of his faith, without any other cause?
Are you saying I kill to show my faith??
-
To experience evil, to live it, go through it, be touched by it, harmed by it--this is bad. Before deciding to disobey, human beings had only experienced goodness. So it isn't experience per se that is bad, it is what they experienced.
Then why is it called "... of good and evil"?
-
aldo: Bigotry? Shuve it
You only must respect someone's RIGHT to have an opinion - NOWHERE does it say you must respect the opinion - INFACT Respecting irrational opinions is harmful to society and yourself.
You are simply ignoring the truth in what i just said because it makes your queasy that some people will stand up for sanity
-
Originally posted by mikhael
Perfection by itself is meaningless. It requires imperfection to have meaning (as I explained to Trashman).
This is true, as it is for any qualifier (there is no "more" without a "less"). But it isn't the full answer, since any qualifier must qualify something. Perfection has to be perfection in regard to some valued trait. But perhaps this is an unnecessary point to keep banging on...
Actually, I don't see free will as imperfection. Your following statements are predicated on your misunderstanding of my understanding. We are actually in accord here: free will is not imperfection. I will address your statements in this light.
Then what exactly is the assumed imperfection in humanity as created, or are you now saying that human beings were not created imperfect? If so, then that is a different discussion then I thought we were having. Please tell me what you do think, so we can talk about that. :)
For one's will to be free, one's decisions must be informed. A thought experiment: ...
To countervail their basic nature, all God has to do is give his pets an understanding of the consequences of their actions ahead of time. Assuming a perfect and all powerful God, it is not unreasonably to assume that He could instill within His pets enough knowledge to provide a balance to temptation. In that manner, free would truly would be free: the possibility of choosing the wrong choice still exists, but the participant knows the rules of the game.
Gen 2:16-17: "And the LORD God commanded the man, 'You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die.'" They knew what death was, though they had never experienced it themselves, obvously. Why else would they need be told "You will surely not die," before they would disobey?
My prior statements show that your assertion about my assumptions are incorrect. My statement stands.
Not until you demonstrate some sort of imperfection in humanity as originally created, or undertake the rather more difficult task of trying to argue either that God is imperfect or that he did not make humankind.
-
Originally posted by Ghostavo
Then why is it called "... of good and evil"?
Because now they had experiential knowledge of both. Before they knew good, now they know good and evil.
-
How did they know good without knowing evil? And even if that was possible, then why wasn't the tree just the tree of evil, for example?
Then what exactly is the assumed imperfection in humanity as created, or are you now saying that human beings were not created imperfect?
We aren't immortal, we commit mistakes, need any more proof?
-
Originally posted by Ghostavo
How did they know good without knowing evil? And even if that was possible, then why wasn't the tree just the tree of evil, for example?
I experience gravity without ever having experienced a lack of gravity. So likewise, they had experiential knowledge of goodness without experiential knowledge of evil. They had theoretical awareness of what evil was, but had not gone through it.
For our purposes in this particular discussion, the text could just have easily said "the tree of the knowledge of evil." However, our discussion is not what the author had in mind when he wrote. Had he said "the tree of the knowledge of evil" that would not have communicated quite exactly the same idea as what he wanted. By saying both good and evil, the text underlines that we now know both. If it said only evil that would be making a slightly different point.
We aren't immortal, we commit mistakes, need any more proof?
But those aren't functions of how we were created, but the results of a change subsequent to our creation.
-
Originally posted by Sesquipedalian
Because now they had experiential knowledge of both. Before they knew good, now they know good and evil.
Without evil there is no good. You must know evil before you can know good.
-
Originally posted by Tiara
Without evil there is no good. You must know evil before you can know good.
Care to provide some substance to back up that statement?
-
Originally posted by Zeronet
Care to provide some substance to back up that statement?
Common thought. Without light you have no darkness.
You need to know how to distinguish good from evil before you can know what is what.
-
Originally posted by jdjtcagle
Are you saying I kill to show my faith??
Not at all, though I'm continually amazed that some do. But some might kill because thier faith tells them too - they do not see it as a proof of faith, just that their faith demands it of them and so - without debate or reason - they kill.
I continue to find the notion of killing without reason a curious and disturbing one. It's becomming quite common these days.
-
But those aren't functions of how we were created, but the results of a change subsequent to our creation.
My point exactly :D
So we're not perfect!
-
Originally posted by Kalfireth
Not at all, though I'm continually amazed that some do. But some might kill because thier faith tells them too - they do not see it as a proof of faith, just that their faith demands it of them and so - without debate or reason - they kill.
I continue to find the notion of killing without reason a curious and disturbing one. It's becomming quite common these days.
those suicide bombers and terrorist believe in the old testament, but there... so called prophet "Muhammid" Says that they shold kill for there country and what God. and what is considered as unholy should be destroyed. And, they hate America because they believe us to be Unholy. Which is BULL
-
Originally posted by Kazan
aldo: Bigotry? Shuve it
You only must respect someone's RIGHT to have an opinion - NOWHERE does it say you must respect the opinion - INFACT Respecting irrational opinions is harmful to society and yourself.
You are simply ignoring the truth in what i just said because it makes your queasy that some people will stand up for sanity
Queasy?
Kaz, I'd normally agree with the substance of your views on this subject - but the way you present them is reprehensible.
More improtantly, you've shown remarkable intolerence of anyone who dares to disagree with you.... and that is something I hate to see in people. You seem to regard the world as being in black and white - and that anyone who doesn't hold exactly the same view as yourself doesn't have the right to hold any opinion.
I'm sorry if you are offended by this, but it's true - you are remarkably intolerant of others. Crucially, you don't even try to hide that bitterness and intolerence, and even seem to revel in it - demonising anyone who disagrees with you.
That, is what I define as bigotry. And I'm sorry if that offends you, but maybe you should look in the mirror before responding with petty snipes at me or other people.
-
People who assert things as fact and cannot support them, let alone prove them, should not be tolerated.
Tolerance is not universally good - tolerating them is like tolerating someone holding a gun to my head.
I am remarkably intolerant of IRRATIONALISM - nobody should be tolerant of irrationalism
-
Originally posted by jdjtcagle
those suicide bombers and terrorist believe in the old testament, but there... so called prophet "Muhammid" Says that they shold kill for there country and what God. and what is considered as unholy should be destroyed. And, they hate America because they believe us to be Unholy. Which is BULL
What a load of racist crap. The koran says no such thing.
-
Originally posted by Kazan
People who assert things as fact and cannot support them, let alone prove them, should not be tolerated.
Tolerance is not universally good - tolerating them is like tolerating someone holding a gun to my head.
Why?
-
Because a difference of opinion is the same as a shotgun in yer mouth apparently.
-
no - because people who build their entire worldview of irrationality are dangerous - they slow the progress of our species, their push their religion on others, they encourage ignorance, they try to take other peoples human rights from them
they encourage barbaric human rights violations such as circumcision, descrimination based on sexual preference, etc.
Different opinions are not inherently dangerous - infact they're often good. However when someone bases their opinion, and their worldview, on complete and total irrationality and ignorance they are dangerous and should not be tolerated.
They are mentally ill
-
Originally posted by karajorma
What a load of racist crap. The koran says no such thing.
Racists!!!
****man
I learn that in school!!!
how does it go??
Do they not believe that if they kill,
they will be rewarded in the afterlife!!
-
Originally posted by Kazan
no - because people who build their entire worldview of irrationality are dangerous - they slow the progress of our species, their push their religion on others, they encourage ignorance, they try to take other peoples human rights from them
they encourage barbaric human rights violations such as circumcision, descrimination based on sexual preference, etc.
Different opinions are not inherently dangerous - infact they're often good. However when someone bases their opinion, and their worldview, on complete and total irrationality and ignorance they are dangerous and should not be tolerated.
They are mentally ill
Yup..... this is another example of you trying to reinforce your argument by making ever-more severe insults.......
Is it no ignorant to discount the beliefs of others out-of-hand, regardless of what they may be?
Originally posted by jdjtcagle
Racists!!!
****man
I learn that in school!!!
how does it go??
Do they not believe that if they kill,
they will be rewarded in the afterlife!!
And how many Muslims do you actually know?
-
Originally posted by Tiara
Common thought. Without light you have no darkness.
Actually that isn't ture...Without light you have darkness!!!:D
@Mik - perfection..o.k...
Tell me Mik..how would you describe a perfect woman?
I bet that everyone of us here on the board would give a different description. Thus, your "perfection" is just that - your own. True perfection is something that every, single beeing in the universe would agree upon... something beyond or limited imagination...and something like that doesn't exist...
Originally posted by Kazan
People who assert things as fact and cannot support them, let alone prove them, should not be tolerated.
Maby I cannot prove I'm right (to you), but you cannot prove me wrong either....
@jdjtcagle - the Kuran doesn't explicitly say that.... it's just that some psycho priests tend to emphasise some things and stretch their meaning... Actually the Kuran is remarkably similar to the Bible (disturbingly smilar, alltough the tone of it is a bit more commanding and agressive)
-
thanks for clearing up that for me, trashman:)
now I better get out of here before I piss someone else off.
It's a bad thing pissing off people that you're around everyday
-
True perfection is something that every, single beeing in the universe would agree upon... something beyond or limited imagination...and something like that doesn't exist...
Math is perfect...
A perfect woman is a contradiction as if it's perfect, it's not a woman, and if it's a woman, it can't be perfect. (same can be applied to any being).
What you are really asking him is not the perfect woman, but rather what woman (or type of woman) would he prefer, which is different.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Tiara
Common thought. Without light you have no darkness.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually that isn't ture...Without light you have darkness!!!
I think she meant "Without light you have no shadows."
-
Originally posted by jdjtcagle
Racists!!!
****man
I learn that in school!!!
how does it go??
Do they not believe that if they kill,
they will be rewarded in the afterlife!!
You better take that class again or simply shoot your teacher if he or she was the one who spouted such racist crap. My father is a muslim. A shia at that (the more fundementalist branch). He prayed to mecca every day and read the koran enough that he was at one point writing a book on the life of the prophet.
He also married a christian and raised an atheist and an agnostic. If you're correct we all should be dead.
I advise you to stop talking crap. Your views are the most stupid opinion's I have ever heard in my life. You argue a point you know nothing about and manage to insult people by doing it.
Leave now and return when you can open your mouth without **** falling out. :hopping:
-
sorry, man didn't mean to offend anyone. I think we bothe lost are tempers on this one. I'll shut up, but I didn't want anyone to be mad. The deal is my teacher's (Ignorant on the subject as I find out today) told me this was true. I feel horrible:(
I dug my self a hole and I'm sorry
Next time I see them I'll be sure to talk to them
-
In that case I'll go get myself som vallium and calm down :)
-
The thing about extremists is that they exist everywhere, be it in the christian, muslin, atheist, etc... comunity. Too often people forget that, and the media don't really help when it comes to this.
Although... I've never heard of Budist extremists :D
-
Well the guy burning himself to death on the front cover of that Rage Against the Machine album cover might have been leaning slightly in that direction :D
With Buddists it's hard to find extremists since karma is of such huge importance to them. "Go kill these people. Buddha will reward you by making something equally nasty happen to you in another life"
"I think I'll pass then"
:D
-
Originally posted by Ghostavo
Although... I've never heard of Budist extremists :D
Ghandi :D [j/k]
-
aldo: Refute my statements - you cannot call them "insults" until you can refute their validity
TrashMan: you fail to understand something even though i've repeated it to you over and over -- simply being unable to prove you wrong doesn't make you right, nor does it even lend validity to your position.
infact the total inability to bring any evidence to bear on a subject by both parties generally means that subject isn't even possible.
It is irrational [by freaking definition] to take your position because you have no evidence. This is LOGIC 101!
You are taking the "positive position" - ie you assert something
I am questioning your assertion, and if you knew anything about logic you would know that your assertion is so ludacris it is doomed to fail the moment it comes out of your mouth.
----------------------------------------
My side assertion is that Theists are irrational -- well this is proven, by definition, by them taking a position which they do not have any evidence to support.
-
Originally posted by Tiara
Without evil there is no good. You must know evil before you can know good.
Have you read what went before? :)
-
Originally posted by Tiara
Common thought. Without light you have no darkness.
Err. Without light, you can't have a shadow...
-
Originally posted by Ghostavo
My point exactly :D
So we're not perfect!
Not now. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the biblical story? In essence, humanity was originally created the way God intended, but later, by our own choice we disobeyed God and altered our nature in the process. Now we are imperfect. In our originally created state we were not.
-
Knight: "Shadow" is technically different from "Darkness" - however "Darkness" and "Shadow" rely upon the definition of "Light" and the definition of "Light" relies upon the definition of darkness
symantically - now we have more scientific definitions which are just obfuscations of that circular definition
-
Sesquipedalian, if humanity was perfect, they wouldn't have made that mistake and behaved the way they did.
-
Being unable to make mistakes is not perfection, it is an absence of choice. The perfection of God is that, though he is "able" not to, he constantly chooses justly, keeps his promises, and mercifully loves what he has created.
-
it isn't the absence of choice, it is simply you don't do things that will cause stuff that you don't want to happen.
if you had the abbility to know how to manipulate the world so that what ever outcome you wanted would happen then you would be incapable of makeing mistakes, and yet you would still have the freedom to chose what actions to take.
-
Actually, you're right, I'd mistaken Ghostavo for saying that their perfection ought to have made them unable to make the wrong decision that they did. My bad. :)
-
No, without light you can have no darkness. Because without knowing what light is you don't know what darkness is. Hence, for the person there would be no darkness because he can't distinguish it.
If you take it litterally, sure, then there is only darkness. :p You can't know something if you don't know the opposite extreme.
Without darkeness there is no light and without light there is no darkness.
-
Originally posted by Kazan
aldo: Refute my statements - you cannot call them "insults" until you can refute their validity
what, that being religious is a mental illness? Or that all religion is irrational? Or that every religious person in the world encourages human rights abuse?
I mean, I've never had anyone (and I know a fair number of people with various religious beliefs - both Muslim and Christian) try to force a religious view or beleif structure upon me. Surely that disproves your universal case immediately?
You prove it - after all, your argument seems to be based on the absence of proof, so apply the same criteria to yourself.
Now, I would agree that forced religion is wrong - i.e. the forcing of religious beliefs in Iran, for example.
But what is wrong with voluntarily choosing to believe?
-
Originally posted by Ghostavo
Math is perfect...
A perfect woman is a contradiction as if it's perfect, it's not a woman, and if it's a woman, it can't be perfect. (same can be applied to any being).
What you are really asking him is not the perfect woman, but rather what woman (or type of woman) would he prefer, which is different.
I think she meant "Without light you have no shadows."
In a completely circular room with a light source in the middle, there would be no shadows....
In order to know darkess I don't have to know light...I just have to be around afte sunset. Darkness and light both exist in our world and since one can experience them, one doesn't need to know the oppisite in order to undersand the other....
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
In a completely circular room with a light source in the middle, there would be no shadows....
In order to know darkess I don't have to know light...I just have to be around afte sunset. Darkness and light both exist in our world and since one can experience them, one doesn't need to know the oppisite in order to undersand the other....
What if darkness did not exist in our world? How could you define 'light', then? (and the inverse case)
It's a simple concept - light is the abscence of darkness, darkness the absence of light. They cannot be defined independently.
-
aldo: never did i say universally - but the fact that the opnes that don't do it themselvse support the ones that do for the most part is enough
and it being a mental illness? it is so by definition
-
Originally posted by Kazan
aldo: never did i say universally - but the fact that the opnes that don't do it themselvse support the ones that do for the most part is enough
and it being a mental illness? it is so by definition
Define it, then.
-
when people believe in this they cannot prove the existance of, that completely exist only in their mind, and they make life decisions based off them they get sent to the mental ward - WITH THE EXCEPTION of "God"ittes, since it is an acceptable mental illness
I wasn't refering to this - but something more general, however I found something interesting
Schizophrenia: Positive symptoms include hallucinations, delusions, and thought disorder.
Definitions from the medical dictionary
So long as they are unable to even support their claims [which they never have been able to] they can easily be fit into any one of the following
psychosis: serious mental disorder that affects all aspects of the personality and involves withdrawal from reality.
schizophrenia: 1. a severe and often incurable mental disorder that is marked by visual and esp. auditory hallucinations, intellectual and emotional isolation from others, and unpredictable behavior.
2. (informal) the existence of strongly contradictory elements, characteristics, motives, or the like.
hysteria: in an individual or group, an uncontrollable outburst of fear or other emotions, producing fits of weeping, laughter, irrational behavior, or the like.
-
Kazan, you speak of proof, ok. Can science prove the love that you have (if any) for a significant other? Is that love something tangible that can be analyzed in its molecular base? Do you not make life decisions based on that experience which cannot be proven? Will scientists a hundered years from now be able to PROVE your experiences by analyzing your bones and material things? Even if you wrote love letters to that significant other that are discovered hundred years from now will be indiscernable as fact or fiction. While people cannot prove the experiences of your life, it sure as heck was real to you was it not? Or would you consider yourself mentally ill like the rest of the world.
Science is no more innocent of YOUR "mental illness" accusations. For example evolution. Do you think Darwin's theories which are being treated as fact today, have solid evidence. All he had were his observations of the variety of animals of the Galapagos Islands to spark that idea in his head. He had no idea that his "simple" one cell organisms have a rediculously complex code (dna) that drives its form/developement. That lead to theories of micro-evolution, which then spawned macro-evolution theories and now this popular science thread is treated as fact. All this theoretical development from the simple observations that fueled THEORIES built upon other theories. As far as I'm concerened evolution is still a theory and not a fact. Yet its treatment in mass media is that of fact, when in actuallity its simply a strong faith in that idea.
My point with this is, science has progressed due to both existing fact data and UNPROVEN ideas that experiements are in turn performed. Actions and decisions motivated by unproven and intangible ideas/revelations can hardly be considered a mental defect.
BTW: Thanks for all those Freespace tutorials and especially the Babylon Project. They really kicked @ss.
-
Omniscaper: I was being curteous and typing out a long line-by-line refutation of your argument
then my computer crashed
I have refuted every one of those arguments you jsut made before - a thousand times. Infact I think if you actually bother to read this thread you'll find refutations for all the evolution ones
As for the Love one, I don't remember if there is a refutation in here - but yes they can measure it behaviorally and neurologically
Darwin's Theory - microevolution IS a fact and every time someone tries to refute it they end up refuting themselves
Macroevolution is presented as exactly what it is - A THEORY, and the parts of it that seem irrefutable are treated as fact - just because a chain is incomplete doesn't mean that chain is wrong, that is the only refutation anybody has ever had to any part that is treated as a fact.
Part of your first paragraph is irrelevant, most of it is pointless basic Logic 101 can refute that.
Overall Omniscaper: Your Argument = steaming pile of dung that has been rehashed well beyond a thousand times
I am sick and tired of refuting the same arguments over and over and over and over ...
-
Do you want a hug? =)
-
rotfl.. i want people like you to finally realize that you have no ground to stand upon
-
Why be grounded when one could fly?! =)
As a christian, I don't believe in arguing people into the faith. In the end its God who reveals himself to people and sparks inner revelation and a perspective change. If I come across as a faith pusher, I apologize. I myself am grappling with pride issues. I guess I take those coments as personal attacks, but I now realize that your reality is your own and I can do nothing else but to set the record straight when Christianity is portrayed to others in a false way.
I have to admit that many of the points you're making are keeping me on my toes and pushes me from being complacent in speaking out about my faith. I'm now motivated to do more homework and research on Christianity.
PS: I'm aware that micro-evolution is a fact. I worded that paragraph funkily. I'm no english major. I was just illustrating the chain, not refuting the fact. In reguards to chains, a chain would be useless if the foundation its tied to is unstable, or if a link is faulty. A break would still lead to disasterous fall. I've yet to find weak link in the chain of my faith's source. God to me is the strongest foundation to rely on. Unlike science, His nature never changes.
-
Perhaps you should direct that research at learning logic and actually taking your religion out of it's compartment and use your critical thinking skills
-
I've been there and done that. It lead right back to Christianity. Would you believe that it was science (from the big bang to the anthropic principals) that lead me back and strengthened my faith?! (If you want details just email me or PM me. Its quite long winded)
I participated in my share of physics, sociology, philosophy, and mythology classes and lectures. Its too bad that logic alone can't satisfy my journey. I found it too cold and dry. It made me a bitter and disconnected person, according to what my peers have told me (who are not religious). In the end of that search I found it to be nothing more than an indulgence in intellectual vanity. I prefer to let my logic and emotions rely on something that has become more real to me. Something that can strengthen me.
-
Omniscaper: you didn't honestly use your thinking critical skills
And if you really want to explain your mislogic I would be happy to point out the errors - science, REAL science, will never point you to religion
"too cold and dry" - You admit that you're letting your emotions do your critical tihnking for you - that is one of the greatest fallacies - it also is the driving force between every intentional fallacy I see a religious person make.
A "cold and dry" truth is much better than a pleasant lie. If it made you bitter and disconnected that the problem is in you, you chose to be bitter and disconnected - because reality stole your fanatsies.
Emotions have no business in critical thinking, they have no business helping decide your work view. Emotions have their own realm whree they are important and valid - i determining matters of factuality they have NO BUSINESS
-
Originally posted by Kazan
when people believe in this they cannot prove the existance of, that completely exist only in their mind, and they make life decisions based off them they get sent to the mental ward - WITH THE EXCEPTION of "God"ittes, since it is an acceptable mental illness
I wasn't refering to this - but something more general, however I found something interesting
Schizophrenia: Positive symptoms include hallucinations, delusions, and thought disorder.
Definitions from the medical dictionary
So long as they are unable to even support their claims [which they never have been able to] they can easily be fit into any one of the following
psychosis: serious mental disorder that affects all aspects of the personality and involves withdrawal from reality.
schizophrenia: 1. a severe and often incurable mental disorder that is marked by visual and esp. auditory hallucinations, intellectual and emotional isolation from others, and unpredictable behavior.
2. (informal) the existence of strongly contradictory elements, characteristics, motives, or the like.
hysteria: in an individual or group, an uncontrollable outburst of fear or other emotions, producing fits of weeping, laughter, irrational behavior, or the like.
I suppose you have a psychology doctorate to actually back up your interpretation of these definitions, then?
RE:
Psychosis - why would religion imply "withdrawal from reality"? Specifically, what is the clinical definition of this term?
Schizophrenia - 2/ is the only definition that i can see being relevant, and that is informal - i.e. vague. It's also ambivalent - I'm sure an ardent christian could say that belief in science covers the same ground.
Hysteria - here is another definition which is totally incompatible with what you wrote;
http://cancerweb.ncl.ac.uk/cgi-bin/omd?hysteria
Another (less contradictory)
http://www2.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/mwmednlm
Finally
http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/hysteria
It's worth noting that you seem to be mentioning the non-medical term, i.e. not the definition of the neurological condition.
And this is obviously your subjective, unqualified opinion, so it's not really worthy as 'proof' to anyone else.
-
Here's something wierd:)
The person that played Jesus in the Passion, was struck by lightning twice when on the cross:eek: :eek:
-
Originally posted by jdjtcagle
Here's something wierd:)
The person that played Jesus in the Passion, was struck by lightning twice when on the cross:eek: :eek:
It's certainly funny but anyone nailing themselves to a cross which it the highest thing for miles around should expect the possibility.
-
aldo: your "supposedly" conflicting definition of hysteria does anything but - it infact agrees with my usage
as for a "christian" saying anything - THEY CAN SAY WHATEVER THEY WANT - However they cannot back it up
I cited the definitions for you and you're trying to argument them and can even understand the bloody things.
Some days I swear my cat is smarter than the average human.. ****ing pathetic
-
Originally posted by karajorma
It's certainly funny but anyone nailing themselves to a cross which it the highest thing for miles around should expect the possibility.
good point.
and Kazan the world is filled with average human beings, so if your going to insult us, talk to your cat
-
sounds like a plan, i'd probably get an intelligent response from the cat
hehehehe
-
Originally posted by Ghostavo
Sesquipedalian, if humanity was perfect, they wouldn't have made that mistake and behaved the way they did.
Originally posted by Sesquipedalian
It is notable that the descriptions of Adam and Eve never use the terms perfection or imperfection. The idea isn't on the radar.
This is a more significant point than is often recognised. Asking if they were perfect or not doesn't make sense--no one ever said whether they were or they weren't. Its like reading your math book and asking whether it said Shakespeare was a good poet--a math book doesn't talk about that.
What the Bible says is that humans were made with freedom of choice, that they could undergo change as a result of their choice, and that they were originally intended to live in communion with God. Were any of these "perfections"? It doesn't matter. All that matters is that they were these things.
-
Kazan, I wonder. What is your purpose in life?
-
Originally posted by Setekh
Kazan, I wonder. What is your purpose in life?
Setekh, what's your purpose? :p
-
Heh. :) Well, I was going to say what I thought of Kazan's previous comments (in which I observed a certain purpose which I once had), but I thought I'd better ask first what he thought of himself.
(My purpose in life, btw, is to live out the reality of my being brought to life as more than a physical being, and help others to know and havve the very same thing. In a manner of speaking. ;))
-
Originally posted by Kazan
aldo: your "supposedly" conflicting definition of hysteria does anything but - it infact agrees with my usage
as for a "christian" saying anything - THEY CAN SAY WHATEVER THEY WANT - However they cannot back it up
I cited the definitions for you and you're trying to argument them and can even understand the bloody things.
Some days I swear my cat is smarter than the average human.. ****ing pathetic
What, that religion almost exclusively occurs in women (as in hysteria)? The majority of symptons (arguably, all of them) are in no way applicable to the majority of religious people - whilst there is the phenomena of religious hysteria, this is not universal, and more importantly hysteria is not restricted to religious people.
I'm sorry, but if you are going to espouse an extremist view along those lines*, you're going to need something a hell of a lot more compelling than your interpretation to convince me (or anyone) of them. You're going to need to provide me a definitive link and proof, beyond just quoting the definitions.
So far, the only proof you've offered is to have faith in your unqualified interpretation - and I can't see any stronger basis in your interpretation than mine.
Oh, yes, and was there any need for the insult at the end? Or did you just want to boast about having a cat?
*i.e. that every religious person in the world is in some way - and has to be - mentally ill
-
Originally posted by Sesquipedalian
This is a more significant point than is often recognised. Asking if they were perfect or not doesn't make sense--no one ever said whether they were or they weren't. Its like reading your math book and asking whether it said Shakespeare was a good poet--a math book doesn't talk about that.
What the Bible says is that humans were made with freedom of choice, that they could undergo change as a result of their choice, and that they were originally intended to live in communion with God. Were any of these "perfections"? It doesn't matter. All that matters is that they were these things.
If the math book described Shakespeare and his poems you could say if he was a good poet or not, except math and Shakespeare are different subjects and that wouldn't have much of a point. The bible describes Adam's and Eve's actions (not sure if it tells you an exact discription of them) so you can say if they are perfect or not. One of the things people praise about "god" is he's perfectness, so one can assume that humans never were perfect as I don't see anyone praise Adam or Eve. I'm not denying that they weren't what you are telling they were, I'm just telling they weren't perfect and that in religion the only thing that is perfect is god, whoever he may be. Of course this only applies to monotheism as politheism is totally diferent in this perspective. Now if someone could remind me why did this discussion about perfectness began I would be grateful...
-
*laughs* faith my arse
Setekh: the only purpose you have in life is that what you give it - my purpose is to have fun and live well.
you people are preventing me from having fun
-
Originally posted by Kazan
*laughs* faith my arse
Setekh: the only purpose you have in life is that what you give it - my purpose is to have fun and live well.
you people are preventing me from having fun
You're preventing yourself, methinks.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
You're preventing yourself, methinks.
:nod:
If you want to have fun do it yourself. It's your choice to take part in this debate :)
I do however, share your views on life. My goal is to live my life the way I want to live it. If I do that, I can die and fade away happily knowing that the time I spent alive was worth living for.
-
aldo_14: it's hard to enjoy life when you are surrounded by irrational people, bigots and other less than savoury characters.
Ever been annoyed with a person for their predictability? try finding 95% of the population utterly and completely predictable
-
"Live for today, not for tomorrow"
It's a good philosophy.
Although it falls down a bit if you're saving up to go on holiday or summat.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
"Live for today, not for tomorrow"
"Live for today, prepare to have fun tomorrow"
:D
-
That's better Tiara
/me flogs Aldo for trying to ascribe incorrect axioms to my philosophy
-
Originally posted by Kazan
/me flogs Aldo for trying to ascribe incorrect axioms to my philosophy
Hey! Keep me out your flithy S&M dreams.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Hey! Keep me out your flithy S&M dreams.
Sado AND[/u] masochism? :lol:
-
Oops :nervous:
Me dad nearly started up a company called 'S&M Marketing' till we pointed out the possible, er, misunderstandings.... I've got the 2 terms mixed up ever since.
-
Originally posted by Ghostavo
If the math book described Shakespeare and his poems you could say if he was a good poet or not, except math and Shakespeare are different subjects and that wouldn't have much of a point. The bible describes Adam's and Eve's actions (not sure if it tells you an exact discription of them) so you can say if they are perfect or not. One of the things people praise about "god" is he's perfectness, so one can assume that humans never were perfect as I don't see anyone praise Adam or Eve. I'm not denying that they weren't what you are telling they were, I'm just telling they weren't perfect and that in religion the only thing that is perfect is god, whoever he may be. Of course this only applies to monotheism as politheism is totally diferent in this perspective. Now if someone could remind me why did this discussion about perfectness began I would be grateful...
(http://www.3dap.com/hlp/hosted/scroll/misc/banghead.gif) You aren't listening to me. Perhaps a graphical representation will help.
You are saying that since the Bible doesn't describe Adam and Eve with the idea of "perfect", they must be imperfect. That is rather like saying everything that is not painted white is black.
(http://www.3dap.com/hlp/hosted/scroll/misc/perfect_or_not.gif)
But the biblical description given doesn't use the terms "perfect" or "imperfect" at all. Humans are described as being many other things. But you are insisting that since they aren't decribed as white, then red and yellow and blue must be black.
Do you see the error in logic here?
As for why we are discussing this, it is one small but important point in a much larger issue I was talking with Mikhael about. You decided to jump in and make a fuss about it, so I have been trying to elucidate the point for you.
-
Actually, I'm saying that due to the description of their actions one can logically assume they are imperfect, nothing more nothing less. The rest of my post is correct a monotheist religion wouldn't make sense if there were other beings that were perfect asside from god.
Is that "changeabable" I see in the imperfect side? :D What is "relational"?
-
ghostavo's logical deduction is valid and correct
-
Originally posted by Ghostavo
Actually, I'm saying that due to the description of their actions one can logically assume they are imperfect, nothing more nothing less.
And again my point is missed. Okay, lets go through your argument in detail, so I can show you what I am talking about.
Your argument is as follows:
1) Human beings were either created perfect, or they were created imperfect.
2) To be perfect, in this case, means to be unable to choose to do evil and being unable to change from a sinless state to a sinful one.
3) Humans did choose to do evil and did change from a sinless state to a sinful one.
Therefore,
4) Humans were created imperfect.
The first problem with your argument is this: who says having free choice and having the ability to change are imperfections? They are is only imperfections if humans aren't supposed to have them. If humans are supposed to have them, then they aren't imperfections at all.
The second problem is this: the biblical story doesn't use the ideas we mean when we use the terms "perfect" and "imperfect". If you insist on telling a story about Adam and Eve that does include one or the other of those ideas, you aren't talking about the biblical story anymore. You are telling your own story. If so, we aren't talking about anything anymore, because you are talking about the story you made up, and I am talking about the one in the Bible.
You see, the situation is this: when God made them, they were capable of doing everything God intended for them to do. They hadn't yet grown up into all of that yet, so they hadn't yet attianed everything God intended for them. At the same time, there was nothing wrong with them, nothing that made them unable to fulfill their purpose. So on the one hand, they weren't "perfect", because they hadn't yet fulfilled their purpose. But on the other hand, they weren't "imperfect", for they were exaclty what they were supposed to be at that time: able to grow and fulfill their purpose.
So we can see that at the time of humanity's original creation, the ideas of "perfect" or "imperfect" don't fit the reality well enough to be useful. Trying to use these ideas only gets us confused.
The rest of my post is correct a monotheist religion wouldn't make sense if there were other beings that were perfect asside from god.
Sure it would. "Perfect" just means that something fulfills its purpose completely and utterly. I can have a perfect fruitcake (one that is everything I meant for it to be) without removing the possibility of God. Fred can have a perfect dog (one who is everything Fred wants in a dog) without removing the possibility of God. One can have perfect angels (ones that are everything God intended angels to be) without removing the possibility of God. One can have all sorts of perfect beings in a monotheistic religion. Monotheism just means you can only have one God.
Is that "changeabable" I see in the imperfect side? :D What is "relational"?
In my diagram, changeable doesn't necessarily fit into either side. Relational was a short form for what I said earlier, that humans were intended to live in direct interpersonal relationship with God (i.e. talking with him, knowing him, and otherwise experiencing him directly in their lives).
-
Originally posted by Kazan
ghostavo's logical deduction is valid and correct
See above.
-
Perfection does not exist :p
-
Originally posted by Tiara
Perfection does not exist :p
i agree, perfection is something that a man/woman strives towards
-
Sesquipedalian, I've said this in my two previous posts and I will say this again, check with your nearby priest or catholic teacher or something.
In monotheism the only perfect being is god. If this sentence doesn't apply to "your" religion, then what you are following isn't monotheism, but a cult of personality or some odd form of politheism.
Even more after you say something like
"Perfect" just means that something fulfills its purpose completely and utterly.
and then something like
They hadn't yet grown up into all of that yet, so they hadn't yet attianed everything God intended for them.
-
Originally posted by Windrunner
i agree, perfection is something that a man/woman strives towards
I don't, cause I know I'll never attain it ;) I'm striving to do the best I possible can. ;)
-
If you were perfect, then you'd just spend your time trying to remain perfect, so it really wouldn't make any difference.
-
Originally posted by Ghostavo
Sesquipedalian, I've said this in my two previous posts and I will say this again, check with your nearby priest or catholic teacher or something.
In monotheism the only perfect being is god. If this sentence doesn't apply to "your" religion, then what you are following isn't monotheism, but a cult of personality or some odd form of politheism.
Dude, at this moment I am finishing off my master's degree in theology. That means I will soon be the guy who trains clergy to do their jobs. So if one of us is in a good position to know what Christianity teaches, I think it is me.
I think you just misunderstand what perfect means.
Don't believe me? Here, try this (http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?search=perfect&SearchType=AND&version=NIV&restrict=New_Testament&StartRestrict=&EndRestrict=&rpp=25&language=english&searchpage=0&x=15&y=9). It's a list of all the times "perfect" occurs in the New Testament alone. Take note of who it is applied to.
Even more after you say something like
and then something like
Read the other half. There also was no flaw in them. I am not saying they were perfect. I am saying that the classification system of perfection/imperfection itself is not a valid one in this situation.
-
I know what perfect (http://cancerweb.ncl.ac.uk/cgi-bin/omd?perfect) or perfection (http://cancerweb.ncl.ac.uk/cgi-bin/omd?perfection) means.
If you are refering that perfection is refered more often to Jesus in any form and thereby refuting my previous opinion about god being the only perfect being I advise you to think about your future in that Master Degree of yours with this (http://www.bartleby.com/65/tr/Trinity.html). If you deny this "god being 3 guys", you're saying that Christianity is a form of polytheism thereby correcting my earlier post. Either you were refering to Jesus or not, I'm sorry if I sound rude as I don't know any other way of saying this. The rest applies to what Tiara and Windrunner were saying about striving towards perfectness.
Originally posted by Sesquipedalian
Read the other half. There also was no flaw in them. I am not saying they were perfect. I am saying that the classification system of perfection/imperfection itself is not a valid one in this situation.
Let me put it this way... What is not perfect is imperfect, you can't deny that in any way as it would be like saying that something that isn't lit isn't dark. I'm not saying they are imperfect because the bible doesn't say they are perfect, what I am saying repetedly is that due to their actions they are not perfect.
If I missed any point please post something about it as I want to be perfectly clear about this. (pun intended)
-
From what I understand, Sesq means that the word "perfect" used in the English translation we read does not have the same meaning as the modern meaning of the word "perfect". Also from what I gather (don't want to put words in Sesq's mouth in case I misunderstood), the Biblical "perfect" means something akin to what we mean in modern speech by the words "appropriate", "apt", "suited", "does the job", etc.
Close, or am I completely off?
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
Close, or am I completely off?
Close. See below.
Originally posted by Ghostavo
If you are refering that perfection is refered more often to Jesus in any form and thereby refuting my previous opinion about god being the only perfect being I advise you to think about your future in that Master Degree of yours with this (http://www.bartleby.com/65/tr/Trinity.html). If you deny this "god being 3 guys", you're saying that Christianity is a form of polytheism thereby correcting my earlier post. Either you were refering to Jesus or not, I'm sorry if I sound rude as I don't know any other way of saying this. The rest applies to what Tiara and Windrunner were saying about striving towards perfectness.
I likewise am sorry for getting snippy in my last post. :)
Anyways, I wasn't trying to call your attention to the fact that Christ is called perfect (don't worry, I am quite familiar with the doctrine of the Trinity :)). Instead, I wanted to point out that this term is used for his followers as well. Looking over the link (http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?search=perfect&SearchType=AND&version=NIV&restrict=New_Testament&StartRestrict=&EndRestrict=&rpp=25&language=english&searchpage=0&x=15&y=9) I gave above, one can note that - Matthew 5:48 and 19:21,
- 2 Corinthians 13:9, 11,
- Philippians 3:12,
- Colossians 1:28,
- Hebrews 7:11, 19, 10:14, 11:40, and 12:23,
- James 3:2, and
- 1 John 4:18
all hold out in one way or another the idea that human beings can be perfect.
You see, monotheism doesn't say that there can only be one perfect being, just that there can be only one God. God is perfect, but that doesn't mean other things can't be perfect too.
To really explain what I mean with that, let's move on to your next point...
Let me put it this way... What is not perfect is imperfect, you can't deny that in any way as it would be like saying that something that isn't lit isn't dark.
On a very simplistic, black-and-white level, this is of course true. However, the reality is a little more complicated...
Let's look at the definition of perfect that you linked above. It says Brought to consummation or completeness; completed; not defective nor redundant; having all the properties or qualities requisite to its nature and kind; without flaw, fault, or blemish; without error; mature; whole; pure; sound; right; correct.
Now, Adam and Eve, as originally created, fit some of these definitions, and not others. They were without flaw, fault, blemish, or error. They were exactly what God wanted them to be at that time. However, God also wanted them to start from this flawless state and use the gifts he had given them to grow into even greater glory.* So they hadn't yet attained everything God meant for them to attain.
This means that on one level, they fit the description of perfect (they were flawless and everything God intended them to be at that time). On another level, they were not yet perfect (they still had to complete everything they were intended to do in the future).
This is why I have been saying that the categories of perfect/imperfect don't really work well in this case. It depends on what perspective you are taking. (I.e.: Are you looking at what they were, or what they were to become?)
I'm not saying they are imperfect because the bible doesn't say they are perfect,
No, I was making the point that the Bible doesn't call them either perfect or imperfect. My reason for doing so was to get at the idea that I have laid out above in this post--the Bible doesn't use the terms for the simple reason that they don't work well here.
what I am saying repetedly is that due to their actions they are not perfect.
I know, I read what you said before. :) I've been trying in various ways to answer that for you.
You might remember from that diagram I drew earlier that I included three important qualities about human beings. These were that humans had free will, that they were able to change their nature, and that they were made to be in direct interpersonal relationship with God. All of these things were part of what God intended humans to be--one could say that they were perfections. But there is a risk involved in giving humans those qualities, because they could exercise their free will by choosing to change their nature in a way God didn't want by breaking their relationship with him. Humans made the choice to do just that, and at that moment they became imperfect.
The thing to note about this is that the power to choose is not an imperfection. What caused Adam and Eve to choose to disobey God? Nothing[/u]. You see, when God gave them free will, he wasn't kidding. He gave them the pure, raw, free, autonomous power to choose what they would do. Nothing forced them to do what they did. No imperfection caused it. Nothing caused it. If something had caused it, they wouldn't have had free will. But they did have free will. And by an act of sheer will, they chose what they did. Having that power wasn't a bad thing--it could equally as well have been used for good. The issue isn't whether that power was good, it is whether we used it for bad or good.
That's why I have to disagree with your statement, Ghostavo. If we sinned because we were already imperfect in that way at the beginning, then there was no free will.
* I.e. "I've given you the necessary abilities, so go out and take this world I've made and make it even better," which is the basic meaning of the command to "Fill the earth and subdue it" in Gen 1:28.
-
dbl post
-
Originally posted by Sesquipedalian
You might remember from that diagram I drew earlier that I included three important qualities about human beings. These were that humans had free will, that they were able to change their nature, and that they were made to be in direct interpersonal relationship with God. All of these things were part of what God intended humans to be--one could say that they were perfections. But there is a risk involved in giving humans those qualities, because they could exercise their free will by choosing to change their nature in a way God didn't want by breaking their relationship with him. Humans made the choice to do just that, and at that moment they became imperfect.
The thing to note about this is that the power to choose is not an imperfection. What caused Adam and Eve to choose to disobey God? Nothing[/u]. You see, when God gave them free will, he wasn't kidding. He gave them the pure, raw, free, autonomous power to choose what they would do. Nothing forced them to do what they did. No imperfection caused it. Nothing caused it. If something had caused it, they wouldn't have had free will. But they did have free will. And by an act of sheer will, they chose what they did. Having that power wasn't a bad thing--it could equally as well have been used for good. The issue isn't whether that power was good, it is whether we used it for bad or good.
I agreed. Free will is a tool of tremendous power - and power is a good thing, not a bad thing. I like to think of Hell as God's acknowledgement of the dignity of human choice - he values and will not terminate the ability to choose to such an extent that he will allow his own creation to choose death, as it were.
-
Originally posted by Setekh
I agreed. Free will is a tool of tremendous power - and power is a good thing, not a bad thing. I like to think of Hell as God's acknowledgement of the dignity of human choice - he values and will not terminate the ability to choose to such an extent that he will allow his own creation to choose death, as it were.
But.... if God gave humanity free choice, then he gave them right not to believe in God. But then he would have created Hell to punish humanity for making the free choice not to believe...... which seems a bit unfair.
-
Originally posted by Sesquipedalian
all hold out in one way or another the idea that human beings can be perfect.
Posted in earlier post
The rest applies to what Tiara and Windrunner were saying about striving towards perfectness.
Yes, you were right, I was interpreting perfect in another way, although I don't feel completly satisfied with regarding perfect as "doing it's job". But even still I think I'm correct by saying that because of the impossibility of a perfect man/woman, there isn't a perfect man/woman in any religion and if there ever was, that and any religion would crumble due to that existing reality.
Let me put it this way... What is not perfect is imperfect, you can't deny that in any way as it would be like saying that something that isn't lit isn't dark.
On a very simplistic, black-and-white level, this is of course true. However, the reality is a little more complicated...
Actually the definition of imperfect is "that which is not perfect". The problem is not fidding out what is imperfect but finding out what is perfect to tell something from that.
Humans made the choice to do just that, and at that moment they became imperfect.
Now I'm beginning to see where we diverge... you're saying that only after making such a choice were they perfect. I'm saying that due to the choice they made they couldn't be perfect before. So the main point of this is... can perfection be lost or does perfection endures forever?
The thing to note about this is that the power to choose is not an imperfection. What caused Adam and Eve to choose to disobey God? Nothing. You see, when God gave them free will, he wasn't kidding. He gave them the pure, raw, free, autonomous power to choose what they would do. Nothing forced them to do what they did. No imperfection caused it. Nothing caused it. If something had caused it, they wouldn't have had free will. But they did have free will. And by an act of sheer will, they chose what they did. Having that power wasn't a bad thing--it could equally as well have been used for good. The issue isn't whether that power was good, it is whether we used it for bad or good.
That's why I have to disagree with your statement, Ghostavo. If we sinned because we were already imperfect in that way at the beginning, then there was no free will.
I'll do this through 3 points...
1 - I've never said that the power to choose is an imperfection.
2 - Note the bolded words... that is what I've been trying to say all along... they were imperfect because they didn't act the way they should have. To be perfect sometimes you have to "suffer" and do the "right" thing, and they didn't. That is not denying their free will, as they had the option of doing the wrong thing, now if they had acted "rightly" I wouldn't say they were imperfect because of the lack of data... I might even say they were perfect.
3 - Note the italic statement... that is my argument. It's not their free will that caused their downfall but the choice they made. It is very confusing discussing something like free will complemented with right choices, but look at this this way... in the christian doctrine you are commanded to do the right thing aren't you? Yet, they don't say exactly what you have to do. That means you have to act right but still have your free will. It's more or less what happened to them. Even more when they had a direct order from "god" not to eat the stinking fruit. If you are saying that by not letting them do the wrong thing I'm taking their free will, then you must remember that "god" tried to took that away in the first place, if not be as you were.
Now off topic (this is off topic too but...) why didn't "god" create a world with er... for example... "angels" instead of men?
-
Maybe, just maybe you must experience what life is like before you cross over.
But then why did God create the earth if there is a heaven in the first place??
I say, wait and see:D
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
Math isn't perfect...)
Originally posted by mikhael
Care to back that up with logical argument?
Maybe it was about this: http://www.miskatonic.org/godel.html
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
But.... if God gave humanity free choice, then he gave them right not to believe in God. But then he would have created Hell to punish humanity for making the free choice not to believe...... which seems a bit unfair.
I think people have the age old mental picture of hell as a place where dudes running around with pitch forks torturing fallen souls in this fiery environment of eternal pain. The basic Biblical description of hell is a place devoid of God's presence. Now thats not because He CAN'T be there, but its a place where He choses not to be present. Its a place without His love, grace, and justice.
Now if God gave humans the choice whether or not to follow Him, why is it inconceivable and inappropriate or even unfair for Him to create an after life realm that is for the souls that have rejected Him. I personally don't see Hell in it of itself as punishment for those who have rejected Him in this life but as an appropriate result of that decision. I just have a gut feeling that when a fallen soul finally understands God's true nature, the true punishment is the realization that they can no longer be part of it. Thats my perspective on the subject on Hell.
-
Originally posted by Omniscaper
The basic Biblical description of hell is a place devoid of God's presence.
There is that, and there is also thisRevelation 20:15
If anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.
andLuke 16:22-24
The rich man also died and was buried. In hell, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. So he called to him, 'Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.'
It's not this Limbo-like existence where people wander around feeling sorry for themselves. It's a very real and horrifying place.
-
In essence, Hell is the absence of God's presence. Considering the fact that all that is good is OF God, I couldn't even begin to imagine what His absense would bring about. I am not contesting the other descriptions of hell, nor am I saying that its a simple limbo. From my perspective, God is quite real to me because of particular events I have experienced and witnessed as well as a number spiritual experiences. In light of those, my choice of definition is enough to describe it for me. The other descriptions add to the detail of its definition.
-
Of course, Goober, of the two examples you've cited, one is from a book that came very close to being apocryphal and is commonly regarded by Bibilical scholars to have a fairly good chance of having been a fever dream, and the other is a parable.
-
I almost forgot about the apocryphal books! Thanks for the heads up. More research for me!!! =)
-
Originally posted by Grey Wolf 2009
Of course, Goober, of the two examples you've cited, one is from a book that came very close to being apocryphal and is commonly regarded by Bibilical scholars to have a fairly good chance of having been a fever dream, and the other is a parable.
Perhaps. But a simple search turns up a host of other references:2 Peter 2:6
...he condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by burning them to ashes, and made them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly...
Matthew 25:31-32, 34, 41
When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats...Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world....Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.
Isaiah 66:24
And they will go out and look upon the dead bodies of those who rebelled against me; their worm will not die, nor will their fire be quenched, and they will be loathsome to all mankind.
to name a few.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
But.... if God gave humanity free choice, then he gave them right not to believe in God. But then he would have created Hell to punish humanity for making the free choice not to believe...... which seems a bit unfair.
A bit unfair? In what sense, would you say? Because I think you've hit right on the head of the nail on the issue, but I'd love to know what you think is unfair about this. And consider the question - did God make Hell, or did man? Not that an answer is forthcoming, but it certainly is an interesting thought to consider.
Anyway, I find all the images of fire to be an analogy to what the absence of God represents. People really are unable to comprehend what spiritual effect the absence of God would cause; thus images are invoked to assist understanding. I have no doubt that what Hell will actually be will be worse than the images allude to.
-
Originally posted by Setekh
A bit unfair? In what sense, would you say? Because I think you've hit right on the head of the nail on the issue, but I'd love to know what you think is unfair about this. And consider the question - did God make Hell, or did man? Not that an answer is forthcoming, but it certainly is an interesting thought to consider.
Anyway, I find all the images of fire to be an analogy to what the absence of God represents. People really are unable to comprehend what spiritual effect the absence of God would cause; thus images are invoked to assist understanding. I have no doubt that what Hell will actually be will be worse than the images allude to.
Well, God is suppossed to be - AFAIK - a benevolent entity. So why introduce free choice if it can lead to Hell? (which begs the whole question of why hell exists if God is benevolent....)
Of course, for me the crux of the matter is why believe? In the grand old scheme of things, who is preferred by God - the person who leads a really generous, charitable life but is an aetheist, or the likes of Torquemada - a feverent, devout believer who happens to be completely evil? i.e. how much does belief count for, compared to the actions of a person?
And why does a supreme being need to be worshipped, anyways? I mean, surely there's no lack of self-confidence issue there, so why is it necessarry? Why can't the bible (or any other holy book) be considered as a starting point for society, rather than the be-all and end-all? I.e. why should the bible be static? Presumably it wasn't 2000 years ago, so why is it unalterable now?
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Well, God is suppossed to be - AFAIK - a benevolent entity. So why introduce free choice if it can lead to Hell? (which begs the whole question of why hell exists if God is benevolent....)
Of course, for me the crux of the matter is why believe? In the grand old scheme of things, who is preferred by God - the person who leads a really generous, charitable life but is an aetheist, or the likes of Torquemada - a feverent, devout believer who happens to be completely evil? i.e. how much does belief count for, compared to the actions of a person?
And why does a supreme being need to be worshipped, anyways? I mean, surely there's no lack of self-confidence issue there, so why is it necessarry? Why can't the bible (or any other holy book) be considered as a starting point for society, rather than the be-all and end-all? I.e. why should the bible be static? Presumably it wasn't 2000 years ago, so why is it unalterable now?
The question of benevolence and free will is indeed a big one. It is just like the combination of justice and mercy. My thoughts are that free will enables the possibility of such gain (ie. the creation of more "sons of God", but that's a big topic on its own - for now let's assume that this is a precious outcome worth paying a great price for) that it supercedes the death that results from the presence of Hell. So it seems like a question of: allow the possibility for humanity to both rise to great heights and sink to great lows, or limit them all to a mere robotic existence, devoid of both the possibility for love and for hate? If the Christian view is true, then God in his infinite wisdom believed that the former was best.
As for beliefs/actions, that is a curly question indeed. I'm not sure either of those situations would necessarily be deserving of God's preference - because in light of God's absolute holiness, no ordinary human being's actions, however charitable they may appear to our eyes, is enough to meet his standard on its own. The believer who is evil, though, seems to have a twisted view of his belief, whereby his actions betray the fact that he believes a lie (eg. murder is a great way to serve mankind!) or has an empty belief in the truth that God offers (eg. sure, I believe that God wants me to live a certain way and that's the best for me... but his actions show that he does not really believe that).
On God's "need for worship", C. S. Lewis has some great comments on the Christian view of this, IMHO. Would you be interested in hearing them?
-
Originally posted by Setekh
So it seems like a question of: allow the possibility for humanity to both rise to great heights and sink to great lows, or limit them all to a mere robotic existence, devoid of both the possibility for love and for hate?
Wow... I read that sentence and had a flashback of sorts to the movie Equilibrium - that's the core message of that movie. The situation is that humanity has concluded that the reason behind all the world's wars is emotion - feeling. So through use of drugs, they outlaw emotion, resulting in a peaceful society internally (there are clashes with the feel-crime outlaws), but one that is completely robotic.
-
Originally posted by Ghostavo
Yes, you were right, I was interpreting perfect in another way, although I don't feel completly satisfied with regarding perfect as "doing it's job". But even still I think I'm correct by saying that because of the impossibility of a perfect man/woman, there isn't a perfect man/woman in any religion and if there ever was, that and any religion would crumble due to that existing reality.
I'd be more inclined to say "being what it is supposed to be," rather than "doing its job." At least, "being what it is supposed to be" is what is outlined in the definition of perfect that you posted above. If you are finding the term is not helpful for expressing what you want to express, perhaps you might try another term?
Since I will continue to use perfect in the sense of the definition posted, I ask: why is it impossible to have a perfect human being?
Now I'm beginning to see where we diverge... you're saying that only after making such a choice were they perfect. I'm saying that due to the choice they made they couldn't be perfect before. So the main point of this is... can perfection be lost or does perfection endures forever?
This is the crucial paragraph in your last post. Three things need to be said about it.
1) I'm saying that only after making such a choice were they imperfect. (I assume that was just a typo in your post.)
2) Saying that their choice was due to something before is saying that their choice was caused by something else. If any choice is caused by something else, it is not a free choice--it is a predetermined one. A free choice has to be causeless. That means that citing any prior imperfection as the cause of their choice is to deny that they possessed free will.
(It may be that a large part of this debate derives from our different usage of the term "perfect")
3) Perfection, as defined in the link you gave above, can be lost. If the perfect entity stops being what it is supposed to be, it ceases to be perfect. Using the very words of the definition, somethign can cease to be perfect if - it falls from consummation or completeness;
- it becomes defective nor redundant;
- It stops having all the properties or qualities requisite to its nature and kind;
- it develops a flaw, fault, or blemish;
- it falls into error;
- it ceases to be mature;
- it breaks and is no longer whole;
- it becomes impure;
- it becomes unsound;
- it becomes wrong or incorrect.
Those three things should pretty much answer the rest of your post, since the rest was really just expanding on that one paragraph. (Note: my three points do not correspond to your three points, but to the three sentences of the paragraph I have quoted.)
Now off topic (this is off topic too but...) why didn't "god" create a world with er... for example... "angels" instead of men?
Well, he made a world with both angels and humans, and animals and plants, etc. And it seems that some angels also did what we did, and rebelled against God and became imperfect.
-
Originally posted by Setekh
Anyway, I find all the images of fire to be an analogy to what the absence of God represents. People really are unable to comprehend what spiritual effect the absence of God would cause; thus images are invoked to assist understanding. I have no doubt that what Hell will actually be will be worse than the images allude to.
Precisely. In fact, when we think about all that fire imagery, we would do well to consider what it is that fire does: it burns stuff up. Afterwards there is nothing but the ash. It is significant to note that it is the fire that is called eternal in some passages, not the process of burning. The fire is the symbol of destruction, and it is eternal, symbolising the fact that the destruction is permanent--this is a fire that doesn't go out, a destruction that will not cease.
Matthew 25 is an especially interesting verse on this subject. It says that the eternal fire was prepared for the devil and his demons. Note that it is not a place humans are meant to be. In Revelation is says that Satan, "The Beast" (a.k.a. the Antichrist) and "The False Prophet" (a.k.a. the Beast's right hand man) will be tormented forever and ever, whereas the rest of us seem to be consumed and destroyed. This becomes even more clear when we move out of Revelation into the plainer language of the rest of teh New Testament.
-
@ Sandwich: Maybe this movie really is worth me digging up at the local rental store. :) But I really do think that's the core question of why we were given free will. If you're portraying Equilibrium accurately, then popular culture seems to agree that free will is worth it, despite the costs involved. ;)
Originally posted by Sesquipedalian
Precisely. In fact, when we think about all that fire imagery, we would do well to consider what it is that fire does: it burns stuff up. Afterwards there is nothing but the ash. It is significant to note that it is the fire that is called eternal in some passages, not the process of burning. The fire is the symbol of destruction, and it is eternal, symbolising the fact that the destruction is permanent--this is a fire that doesn't go out, a destruction that will not cease.
Yeah, those thoughts run right alongside mine. The idea of eternal fire as a symbol for permanent destruction makes great sense of the passages without in any way undermining the terror of the situations described - if anything, it emphasises that Hell is actually worse than any human description can articulate.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Well, God is suppossed to be - AFAIK - a benevolent entity. So why introduce free choice if it can lead to Hell?
All excellent questions, Aldo. :)
As Setekh said, free choice was introduced because it was the only way to accomplish what God wanted to accomplish: the creation of beings who would be like himself (though finite), with whom he could share life. If they did not have free will (or more accurately, the independent, creative "spark of life" of which free will is only one mainfestation) then they could not be like him. So to accomplish his purpose, risk was necessary.
(which begs the whole question of why hell exists if God is benevolent....)
Why does hell exist? Well, before we begin, it is important to note that "hell" has become a very muddled concept in the English-speaking mind these days. In the Bible, there are two different things that in English we both translate as "hell." The first is what the Greeks called Hades and the Hebrews called Sheol. This is simply the "realm of the dead." It refers to the state of existence we have between our physical death and the day when we will be resurrected to bodily life again. The second is the final "place of destruction" in which all who choose to reject God will be destroyed one day in the future. It is important that we keep these two things separate in our minds, so from her forward I will not use the term hell, but rather the terms Hades and destruction.
Destruction is the issue you are asking about, right aldo? Well, the simplest answer is ths: we either have the choice to have eternal life in relationship and under the rulership of Jesus Christ, or the choice to reject him, and with him the life that he alone can give. You see, God is the source of all life and goodness, and if we choose to turn away from him, we turn away from life to death. We face possible destruction, not because he decides to destroy us, but because we decide we'd rather be destroyed than take him as our friend and king.
This is the big risk in giving us that "divine spark of life" as I called it: to really have it, we must have the option to put it out.
Of course, for me the crux of the matter is why believe? In the grand old scheme of things, who is preferred by God - the person who leads a really generous, charitable life but is an aetheist, or the likes of Torquemada - a feverent, devout believer who happens to be completely evil? i.e. how much does belief count for, compared to the actions of a person?
Why is believing so important? Well, essentially, believing in the Bible means a lot more than we usually mean in our culture today. In the Bible, to believe is not merely to "give mental assent to the truth of something." It is what we might call really believing--the conforming of our lives to the new reality we have been shown.
Said slightly differently, Jesus didn't simply call to people and say "Hey you, accept this as true and you'll find eternal life!" Instead, he said to them "Follow me, be my disciple and learn to be like me, and then you'll find eternal life!" A Christian is supposed to be a disciple of Jesus. That means believing certain things to be true, letting him be the guy "in charge" and from whom you learn how to live, and carrying out the mission that he gave us by the power of his Holy Spirit*.
So on the one hand, merely believing that certain things are true (as Torquemada did) is not enough, for one is not doing parts two and three of what a disciple does. One the other hand, merely being good is not enough either, for one is still not being a disciple of Jesus--at best, one is merely living in a way that sort of so happens to resemble the way Jesus did.
And why does a supreme being need to be worshipped, anyways? I mean, surely there's no lack of self-confidence issue there, so why is it necessarry?
You are right: God does not need to be worshipped. That isn't why he created us. He created us because he liked being alive so much that he decided to share that life with others. So he made us. It is that simple.
What is the point of worship, then? Well, given who God is, the best way to relate to him (which is what we are made to do) is what we call worship. When I am with my fiancee, it is not without reason that the poets might say that I worship her. I love her. I delight in her presence. I want to be with her as much as I can. And when I am, I express this joy to her. That's what worship is supposed to be.
Why can't the bible (or any other holy book) be considered as a starting point for society, rather than the be-all and end-all? I.e. why should the bible be static? Presumably it wasn't 2000 years ago, so why is it unalterable now?
A very good question! The key phrase is "the be-all and end-all." The Bible is not the be-all and end-all. Its function is to provide a guideline, a rule against which to measure our Christian life as disciples. Being a disciple of Jesus, guided and empowered by the Holy Spirit as we journey through this life on our way to our home with our Father, is a dynamic, continuous activity, and could never be reduced merely to studying a book. Studying the book is good, as there is much stuff in it for us, but the point is not the book. The point is a dynamic, ongoing life with God that is new and different every day.
The Bible is not unalterable because it is all there ever was or will be, the great ultimate of all Christian life and hope. It is unalterable now because we want to preserve a clear record of what God has done with humanity in the past so that we can make sure we are sticking with him in our ever-unfolding lives in the present.
I hope all this was helpful to you, Aldo. I'd be happy to keep talking with you. Now I must get some sleep.
*The Holy Spirit is the third person of the Trinity. The Holy Spirit is God as he is actively present to us now.
-
Originally posted by Sesquipedalian
I hope all this was helpful to you, Aldo. I'd be happy to keep talking with you. Now I must get some sleep.[/size]
True dat, me too. Great explanations btw Sesq, couldn't have said any of it better myself. :)
-
Random insertion for Setekh, Sandwich, Goober5000, and any other parties, Christian or non-Christian, who want to read some really great stuff that answers a lot of questions about theology beautifully well:
I give you Athanasius' On the Incarnation (http://www.gty.org/~phil/history/ath-inc.htm), the one piece of writing that I'd take with me to a desert island along side my Bible if I could only have two things to read.
It's a bit of a read (45 pages copied into my word processor), but so worth it!
-
just few words: I like this thread :cool: :yes:
Athanasius is indeed nice reading long
-
@Sesquipedalian
Good post.
I agree with you there - alltough I think that the Bible souldn't be changed coause some things must not be changed...EVER!
It's not the religion that should be changed to our liking - it's us who need ot change to suit the religion....
-
BOOOYAH!!!
-
TrashMan keeping us in the darkages since the late 1990s :P
-
Well, he [Trashman the Lightbringer] has a point.
Even though I'm an atheist, the idea of church ideas (the Big Ideas, not some trivial **** like birth control or gay marriage) changing to suit the times better is somewhat repulsive - for me. I wonder when we have Church Inc., with quarter year announcements and "A renewed secular school of thought for a new person of 21st century!". Durrrr.
(Neither speaking for total stagnation or taking an I AM THE ICONOCLAST attitude, both are stupid.)
-
I'd be more inclined to say "being what it is supposed to be," rather than "doing its job." At least, "being what it is supposed to be" is what is outlined in the definition of perfect that you posted above. If you are finding the term is not helpful for expressing what you want to express, perhaps you might try another term?
Since I will continue to use perfect in the sense of the definition posted, I ask: why is it impossible to have a perfect human being?
Then there's a problem with that definition... everything in nature is exactly what is supposed to be... terrorists are exactly who they are supposed to be (terrorists). If that definition was true, everyone is supposed to be perfect!! If this is not what you wanted to express then what is a man/woman supposed to be? If that is the case then why are we all not perfect? Or at least some of us... or even only one person in the whole world? And what is god supposed to be? And isn't death itself imperfection? Isn't the purpose of man/woman to live?
In your definition sure it is possible... but that is not exactly what I was asking. I fear this has to do with my strange/"imperfect" definition of perfect (aka "godlike"). But even so please "enlighten" me on the matters I expressed and will express in this post.
Now I'm beginning to see where we diverge... you're saying that only after making such a choice were they perfect. I'm saying that due to the choice they made they couldn't be perfect before. So the main point of this is... can perfection be lost or does perfection endures forever?
1 - Yes, sorry... I meant imperfect.
2 - Everything is caused by something. If that is your true definition of free will, it can't exist. You very existence is caused by something happening. You opinion will always depend on something happening.
3 - Yes... my mistake. So god can become imperfect...
Another off discussion question. Why didn't god create more inteligent animals (not quantity, quality)?
Note - I'm only here to discuss, learn about this and maybe if lucky teach. I'm not here to critisise any belief system as I would have the rights to do so.
-
Originally posted by Kazan
TrashMan keeping us in the darkages since the late 1990s :P
I'm not keeping anyone in the midle ages....Some thing simply mus not be prone to changes.
If a religion changes itself simply to suit more a few spoiled brats and gain a few more worshippers, that is not a religion worth following...
Don't get me wrong - some thing should be changed (and have been changed allready), but that are minor, strictly "esthetical" things...
Some principles and laws must never change...NEVER!...or it will truly lead us to the dark ages...
As far as gay marriage goes, a state wedding? Why not...the state is crazy enough... But a Church wedding? No...never...ever...
-
some thing should be changed (and have been changed allready), but that are minor, strictly "esthetical" things...
As far as gay marriage goes, a state wedding? Why not...the state is crazy enough... But a Church wedding? No...never...ever...
:rolleyes: :lol: :drevil:
-
Originally posted by Janos
Well, he [Trashman the Lightbringer] has a point.
Even though I'm an atheist, the idea of church ideas (the Big Ideas, not some trivial **** like birth control or gay marriage) changing to suit the times better is somewhat repulsive - for me. I wonder when we have Church Inc., with quarter year announcements and "A renewed secular school of thought for a new person of 21st century!". Durrrr.
(Neither speaking for total stagnation or taking an I AM THE ICONOCLAST attitude, both are stupid.)
Yeah, to be honest stuff like that (churches changing from the traditional worship, theology, etc.) pisses me off.
What's even more pathetic are the fundamentalist denominations (who claim to be "non-demoninational") in the area who try to attract people with "Contemporary Worship" which has nothing to do with a religious service. It's a bunch of people singing and dancing 'Chrisitian music'. It turns religion into entertainment as opposed to a spiritual experience.
-
I still fail to see why Gay Marriages are a problem, funny thing is that most religions are against it.
I suppose, in my opinion, the reason for that is simple, Gay Men don't make more followers, and if theres one thing religion relies on, it's force of numbers.
Morality is such a dangerous trap to fall into, from the point of view of many people, America is an immoral and wasteful country, I'm not here to judge that, but, it just goes to prove how many different points of view are involved.
I suppose if it can't happen in churches, it's no big deal really, it's not as if the couple are any less married, and God is everywhere, so he's obviously ok with it, considering there are enough Gay Men in the US to populate Soddem AND Gomorrah (sp) a couple of times over, and we are yet to see any sign of wrathulating.
Being scared of Gays is perfectly natural I suppose, Lesbians tend to be ok, because they pamper to our more polygomous side, deep inside, we all still want territory and mates.
However gay men are another matter for many people. The whole idea of penetration, of being 'under the sexual power' of another man is scary to them, hell, even I feel a little wierd when I word it that way, it's a 100% normal reaction. It all traces back to precisely the same thing really, it's a dominance issue.
Men all yearn to be the 'leader of the pack' to have the most territory and mates, our whole genetic makeup rebels at the idea of anything else.
This does not make homosexuality wrong, it just means that we find it easier to react to our primal fear of being dominated, and of not being in control of a situation than use reason and intelligence.
On the issue of sects and sub-religions, these are inevitable. I suppose I will never have faith in any Holy Book that says it's ok to kill for any reason, because once a Human being is given a get out clause (righteous killing, religious killing, revenge killing etc etc etc) he will beat himself, and several other people to death with it.
-
Originally posted by Flipside
I still fail to see why Gay Marriages are a problem, funny thing is that most religions are against it.
Gay marriage is immoral because it violates God's design for a man and a woman entering into a mutual complementary partnership. It's fundamental to humanity's job on Earth and it's been ingrained on our psyche since the beginning of civilization. Satan knows better than to challenge it directly, so he's trying to wear it down gradually behind the scenes: promoting it as natural, establishing an alternative lifestyle, and framing it as a civil rights issue. It's no more natural than someone marrying his horse. :ick:
-
goober5000: tell me you don't honestly believe that
-
The entire concept of gay marriage really rests on your view of two things. Do you consider sex for just procreation, or procreation and pleasure? And do you consider marriage a civil institution, or a religious institution? All other points are superfluous.
-
Originally posted by Ace
Yeah, to be honest stuff like that (churches changing from the traditional worship, theology, etc.) pisses me off.
What's even more pathetic are the fundamentalist denominations (who claim to be "non-demoninational") in the area who try to attract people with "Contemporary Worship" which has nothing to do with a religious service. It's a bunch of people singing and dancing 'Chrisitian music'. It turns religion into entertainment as opposed to a spiritual experience.
What is the basis of that opinion? Do you even understand and respect "traditional worship"? If not, I don't expect a change of attitude toward "contemporary worship."
How would you define a "spiritual experience?" Hippies on LSD would call many of their trips a spiritual experience as well. Would you accept that as a valid spiriual experience?
What you consider "contemporary" is actually quite old, going way back to John the Baptist (BC period) or perhaps even further. The only thing really contemporary about your "non-denominational" worship is the music.
-
I was raised Roman Catholic and went through all the sacraments up to "confirmation". Organ music, confession, rosaries, etc... you name it, I did it. I was an alterboy and attended a Catholic grade school as well. So many of traditions and rituals that I never bothered to question became a normal part of my life... er, um Sundays. That was all I knew of spirituallity.
My attending a public high school opened my eyes to a world of different perspectives on life. Science and world history came into the picture. I found evolution to be quite convincing, and astronomy to be overwhelming. The intricacies of biology and chemistry, oceanaography, and especially astronomy shifted my brain to a different gear. History and art history classes taught about the history/religions/mythology of the Middle East, India, Egypt, as well as early Roman catholicism in Europe. I made a number of friends who were athiests, agnostics, hippies, and stoners. At that point, Christianity in my head started to become another scientifically baseless blind faith religion among many others.
My folks then dragged the family to a non-denominational Christian service. QUITE A CHANGE from the usual Sunday church mass. My usuall Sunday morning nap and day dreaming session was now impossible because the mellow church organ was replaced with loud electric guitars, digital drums, keyboard, and vocalists. I thought my parents were taking us to some concert. It was quite a strange experience to hear christian rock and seeing a sea of people all into it, clapping and swaying instead of the heads down, hands folded to gothic organ symphony. I was around the age of 16 at the time and I was cracking up at the sight of this. Then a robeless and hatless person I assumed was a priest came up and started reading and analyzing Bible passages and their practical applications in everyday life while making historical and even scientific references. He even provided some references to look up so people don't just take his word for it. He even told everyone to think for themselves and challenged the congragation to do the research on various things. That very gesture got me very interested. A church that concentrated on an objective and spiritual study of the Bible and prayer was quite compelling. The real kicker was the end of the service when the pastor said that salvation only comes through divine grace and trusting on it. An inner personal acceptance for what Jesus did on the cross and an admission of being a sinner in order to become "born again" in Christ.
No elaborate ceremony involving incense and candles, no priest to confess sins to, but a personal intimate relationship with God using the Bible as the guide to know Him better. This changed my view on Christianity drastically. I've been with that congragation for over 4 years now I am more active as Christian, now then when I was attending a Roman Catholic church. I never thought I'd ever find myself ever reading a Bible during my train rides to school.
-
and only proved one thing, and that is a property of you
[edit]
bah s/l/t
-
And you can only ever hope to prove that same thing Kazan, that athiesm is proper for you. Nothing more.
-
Originally posted by Omniscaper
What is the basis of that opinion? Do you even understand and respect "traditional worship"? If not, I don't expect a change of attitude toward "contemporary worship."
How would you define a "spiritual experience?" Hippies on LSD would call many of their trips a spiritual experience as well. Would you accept that as a valid spiriual experience?
What you consider "contemporary" is actually quite old, going way back to John the Baptist (BC period) or perhaps even further. The only thing really contemporary about your "non-denominational" worship is the music.
First off, insulting someone and claiming they do not understand something because they don't agree with your point of view is not a way of having a conversation.
Fortunately, your second post has information that shows your point of view.
Now, I do apologize for using harsher lanuage such as "pathetic" in my earlier post and I will now explain my position:
Going to an Episcopal Church many years after moving from Seattle, (where as I child my parents and I went to a Unitarian Church) with a fun and open minded priest interested me in the history of that church as well as the Roman Catholic church.
Early on when learning more about Christianity I was slightly disturbed by the fact that people seemed to worship Jesus as opposed to God. Fortunately Father Robin, the priest there said that it's alright to have some problems with the idea of the trinity and mentioned how the idea first came to be the main accepted one. (i.e. council of nicea, etc.)
After he retired, we gained a priest who was a good accountant but a poor theologian and no longer wanted to do any outreach for the community. Even simple things such as donations for the local homeless shelter.
Since then I've had a bit of a falling out with organized religion after seeing two extemes. A very active and compassionate priest and another who treated it as a franchise of a business.
I have had several friends in college who are fundamentalists who are into the contemporary worship. From my experience with it, the people involved seem to spew rhetoric as opposed to actually apply examples of religion to their lives, as well as do not help the community except to arrive conveniently during a political scandal to garner attention for their congregation. A casino moving into a town to the north is an example of this, and amazingly drinking and driving and crime rates have not risen in the town despite the claims of a priest whose name I'd rather not mention.
In the last few years after seeing what people do in the name of God I've returned to the conclusion I made as a child: There is no need for a God to exist, except for the need of a person for a God to exist.
I do have respect for religious people who actually help their community, but those who claim the Devil is around every corner and is here to destroy us all here and now at best have my apathy.
-
I'm sorry Ace if my first post was taken as an insult. I was asking if you understood, I wasn't claiming that you didn't. I wasn't sure where you were coming from and the word "pathetic" being used without some form of back up caught my attention. Perhaps I could have worded it more friendly by removing "even" in that sentence.
Believe me, I am not blind to hypocrasy and double standards in Christian oganizations. At times of weakness, I find myself stepping over the line when feelings of pride are allowed to pervail. Actions will always speak louder than words and many people who call themselves christians perform actions that prove otherwise.
The other week I was in a subway and two guys started speaking rediculously loud about the sins of NY and the pending damnation. At some point the homosexual issue was brought up and a passanger started screaming back. One of the loud mouths then said something about sensing a "gay" spirit in his midst. He would then take out a Bible and screamed at people to read it then join their church.
I was so filled with anger. The anger was fueled by the very notion that every person who had no knowledge of what Christianity is really all about in that train, now have a twisted negative view of it. I wanted to confront those guys publicly and point out the serious flaw in their approach. I composed myself and realized that such a public confrontation was counter productive. I felt my knowledge of Biblical teachings was still insufficient to engage in a private one on one chastizing discussion about Christianity with one of them. More reason for me to continue learning.
Jesus treated everyone with respect and dignity. He reached out to people in a human level. He never talked down to people.
Matthew 24:4-5 warns, “Take heed that no man deceive you. For many shall come in My name, saying, I am Christ [that Jesus is the Messiah]; and shall deceive many.”
This passage keeps me going when I witness such sickening things.
The only time Jesus went ballistic was when He saw The Holy Temple filled with "thieves and robbers" with their merchant stands and stuffs. His anger was rightfully focused on the desecration of the Temple's sanctity.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
And you can only ever hope to prove that same thing Kazan, that athiesm is proper for you. Nothing more.
i typed the wrong word, go back and look again
(Actually my points have already been PROVEN - some people just fail to accept them)
-
From a theological point of view, the men in the subway are the same as the merchants in the temple. "Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God?" (1 Corinthians). Hence, their negative approach and attempts to convert were both blasphemy (taking the Lord's name in vain) and sacrilege (defiling His temple).
-
34 pages and I bet not one person has had their opinions changed to any significant degree.
I simply don't see the point of arguing over faith. It's faith. You can't prove or disprove it.
-
Umm..... At least if we have this thread, it doesn't contaminate the other threads as much. It still does spread, but not as much as it could.
-
Originally posted by Shrike
34 pages and I bet not one person has had their opinions changed to any significant degree.
I simply don't see the point of arguing over faith. It's faith. You can't prove or disprove it.
Excactly what I was saying in my earlier threads:nod:
-
becase it's fun :)
it's like an excersise in futility
-
You can't argue anyone into a faith. Change must come from within a person. I just throw in my two cents when some one throws in pennies that look alot like a dirty version of mine. Must make shiny. ;)
And besides, insomnia best relieved when reading alot of cathode ray tube text. Participating in a place where personal expression and beliefs are laid out is fun.
I would actually like to see pennies from Hindus, Buddhists, and Muslims thrown in.
-
Ace is Buddhist aparently
-
If ppl believe that god was always there then why cant they see that matter was always there. how could god make something when there was nothing to make it out of, the idea is simple, and is probably right, all the matter and energy in the universe is constant, you cannot make matter from nothing, its just not possible. and i for one believe in the recycling universe theory, since most things that we know of are based on a repeating cycle.
-
Originally posted by Omniscaper
Believe me, I am not blind to hypocrasy and double standards in Christian oganizations. At times of weakness, I find myself stepping over the line when feelings of pride are allowed to pervail. Actions will always speak louder than words and many people who call themselves christians perform actions that prove otherwise.
...
I can only agree, it is a sad sight to see things so gravely misrepresented. It is bound to happen, though. :sigh:
-
Originally posted by Shrike
I simply don't see the point of arguing over faith. It's faith. You can't prove or disprove it.
No, but you gotta admit, the fact that we haven't gone ballistic at each other in 34 pages is slightly incredulous. I love this place. :yes:
-
I've actually learned a few things... :nervous:
-
In another note, in Hungary, I went to see the Basilica there. Which in one of the biggest in Europe.
Outside, it was grand. The square in front of which it was standing was filled with mosaic. The basilica itself was beautiful.
Then I went inside.
There was a funeral ceremony, or some such going, with choral music and a male choir singing, the most beautiful piece of music I've ever heard. Being a lutherian, I don't see grand decorated churches and stuff like that stuff often. There, it was so beautiful I nearly dropped down in tears.
Even if religion has caused 8 crusades, countless Jihads and whatnot, being the foundation for most of the worlds literature and music, and to a lesser extent architecture, I don't really care whether God exists or not. But if religion results in the creation of something so utterly beautiful, then I'm all for it.
Here's the outer view of the basilica:
(http://www.jeyping.dynip.com/photos/stroll/hungary03/dsc00077.jpg)
[edit] And Shrike, unless you haven't noticed, nearly every philosophical debate ends in a stalemate. But it's so gosh darn interesting.
-
saying that you cannot argue someone out of irrationality is wrong - i've done it before on more than one occasion, and i'll do it again.
what it takes is someone who's willing to give up pleasant lies for simple truth
-
No one has said anything of the kind. I agree with you completely. Hell, I've been fought to the ground once by Sandy (because I didn't bother to carefully read his post, and misinterpreted his quote), and to a stalemate once by Karajorma.
Note the word 'philosophical'. Once you get to genetics, you're going way past philosophy. Now the fundamentalist-conservative discussion in the last few pages, that's more what I had in mind.
-
Not everyone is going to take the red pill. If thinking INSIDE the box is your thing, fine. Just don't start sounding like those folks in the train, talking down on people in a disrespectful manner.
"You must remember, that most people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inert, so hopelessly dependent on the system, they will fight to protect it." -Morpheus
-
Originally posted by Omniscaper
Not everyone is going to take the red pill. If thinking INSIDE the box is your thing, fine. Just don't start sounding like those folks in the train, talking down on people in a disrespectful manner.
"You must remember, that most people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inert, so hopelessly dependent on the system, they will fight to protect it." -Morpheus
Of course, the 'box' is relative........
anyways, stunaep mentioned the Basilica.... don't forget the Sagrada Familia, which is one of the most astonishing looking buildings in the world (and the only unfinished cathedral in the world IIRC)
(http://www.okkolmarden.com/spanienresan/bilder/sagrada-familia.jpg)
Don't have a way of getting me own photos online, so had to nick one off the web
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Of course, the 'box' is relative........
...as well as is what is inside or outside of it. :D
Hypercubes! Yays!
-
Originally posted by Omniscaper
Not everyone is going to take the red pill. If thinking INSIDE the box is your thing, fine. Just don't start sounding like those folks in the train, talking down on people in a disrespectful manner.
"You must remember, that most people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inert, so hopelessly dependent on the system, they will fight to protect it." -Morpheus
Isn't it fun, how people start repeating arguments, over 500-600 posts. I remember making just the same kind of statement somewhere along the beginning of the thread. To which Karajorma admitted, that was something that is unprovable, but he believed it to be wrong.
[edit] I'm not quite sure though, to which argument are you responding, care to explain that?
And well, technically, the Reims cathedral is also unfinished, since it doesn't have towerdomes. Not that it needs 'em.
I also saw Amadeus yesterday again. Mozart's Requiem is just amazing.
-
"You must remember, that most people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inert, so hopelessly dependent on the system, they will fight to protect it." -Morpheus
Remember this can be applied to either side of this discussion... hehehe... it's funny seeing people quote stuff from movies and taking it too seriously. :D
-
Some cathedrals are a bit overdone, in my opinion. The Cathedral of Notre Dame in Montreal, for example.
-
Originally posted by Stunaep
There was a funeral ceremony, or some such going, with choral music and a male choir singing, the most beautiful piece of music I've ever heard. Being a lutherian, I don't see grand decorated churches and stuff like that stuff often. There, it was so beautiful I nearly dropped down in tears.
There, that's what church is supposed to be like. :)1 Corinthians 14:23-25
So if the whole church comes together and everyone speaks in tongues, and some who do not understand [or some inquirers] or some unbelievers come in, will they not say that you are out of your mind? But if an unbeliever or someone who does not understand [or some inquirer] comes in while everybody is prophesying, he will be convinced by all that he is a sinner and will be judged by all, and the secrets of his heart will be laid bare. So he will fall down and worship God, exclaiming, "God is really among you!"
Originally posted by aldo_14
(http://www.okkolmarden.com/spanienresan/bilder/sagrada-familia.jpg)
That looks really weird/interesting. Like a bunch of stalagmites just happened to grow in the form of a church. :eek2:
-
Originally posted by Ghostavo
Then there's a problem with that definition... everything in nature is exactly what is supposed to be... terrorists are exactly who they are supposed to be (terrorists). If that definition was true, everyone is supposed to be perfect!! If this is not what you wanted to express then what is a man/woman supposed to be? If that is the case then why are we all not perfect? Or at least some of us... or even only one person in the whole world? And what is god supposed to be? And isn't death itself imperfection? Isn't the purpose of man/woman to live?
Good questions. :) The answer is basically this: whether something counts as perfect or not depends on what criteria the thing is being judged against. Lets say I have a laptop computer. Now, if I am a businessman on the go all the time, a laptop is perfect for my needs. But, if I am a gamer who wants an easily upgradable power machine, a laptop is far from perfect for me.
So it is with people, too. If you ask al-Qaeda what a "perfect terrorist" is, they have a particular answer, and they probably know lots of people who fit the bill. However, in our discussion, what matters is what God thinks. In his opinion, humans are never supposed to be terrorists. Thus, measured against God's criteria, there can be no perfect terrorists.
So when our question is "Is X a perfection according to God's criteria?", the rest of the matters you bring up fall into place. We probably both have a fairly good idea of what God thinks people are supposed to be, so it should be easy to know what to do with those issues.
In your definition sure it is possible... but that is not exactly what I was asking. I fear this has to do with my strange/"imperfect" definition of perfect (aka "godlike"). But even so please "enlighten" me on the matters I expressed and will express in this post.
Ah, okay. Godlike. Now I know what you were trying to say. Well, no, of course none of us can be the same as how God is: he's the creator, we are created; he's infinite, we're finite; he's omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent, we are none of those; etc., etc., etc. We do reflect some of God's qualities, however. He is loving, we are (or can be) loving; he's creative, we are (or can be) creative; he knows and understands all things, we can know and understand some things; etc. So if you mean godlike in the sense of being the same as he is, the of course no one else can be godlike. If someone meant godlike in the sense of reflecting some of his qualities, then they could say people can be godlike, but in the meaning I think you intend, no.
2 - Everything is caused by something. If that is your true definition of free will, it can't exist. You very existence is caused by something happening. You opinion will always depend on something happening.
Is everything caused by something? At least one thing has to have no cause: if everything had to have a cause, nothing would exist--something has to "just be there." In particular, God can have no cause. If he had a cause, he wouldn't be God. The thing that caused him might be the real God, but he wouldn't be.
But if we can have one, why not more? Our universe is complicated: some things exist as part of a chain of cause and effect (physical objects especially), and some things are sources of those chains of cause and effect (God's will, angels/demons' wills, human wills, probably some animals' wills). The fact that I exist is something that is caused. However, now that I exist, my choices can be sources of chains of cause and effect that themselves are not caused by anything.
Like I said to Aldo, God's put a bit of the "divine spark of life" into each of us. Just as he is the great source of causation, so also are we little sources.
3 - Yes... my mistake. So god can become imperfect...
Well, I suppose in theory he could, if he decided not to be what he himself thought he should be. But that seems like a pretty academic, hypothetical sort of question--I'm not too worried about it happening. :):lol::)
Another off discussion question. Why didn't god create more inteligent animals (not quantity, quality)?
Well, no matter how intelligent he made his creations, they could always be more so. And actually, there is pretty good reason to think that we were wiser and more intelligent before the Fall.
If you go over our earlier posts up until now, you'll notice that I kept refering to humanity "as originally created," and that that is what I have been talking about. This is because I have been very particularly not talking about humans as they are now. The Christian teaching is that we are no longer all that we we meant to be, and that this affects every aspect of our being. We are still something like what God made us to be, but we are broken. Our free will is no longer entirely free; our bodies live, but get sick and die; our minds no longer have the same wisdom and intelligence they once did. All parts of us are corrupted.
Note - I'm only here to discuss, learn about this and maybe if lucky teach. I'm not here to critisise any belief system as I would have the rights to do so.
I commend you for that, Ghostavo. :) A heart that wants to listen and learn is a rare find. I am happy we have been talking. I have learned from it, too. :)
-
Is everything caused by something? At least one thing has to have no cause: if everything had to have a cause, nothing would exist--something has to "just be there." In particular, God can have no cause. If he had a cause, he wouldn't be God. The thing that caused him might be the real God, but he wouldn't be.
But if we can have one, why not more? Our universe is complicated: some things exist as part of a chain of cause and effect (physical objects especially), and some things are sources of those chains of cause and effect (God's will, angels/demons' wills, human wills, probably some animals' wills). The fact that I exist is something that is caused. However, now that I exist, my choices can be sources of chains of cause and effect that themselves are not caused by anything.
In common physics cause will always be before the effects (being in normal physics, the big bang the cause of all events in the universe). In another type of physics (temporal unless I'm mistaken) the cause can actually be after it's effects!! But either way, everything that has been happening, will happen, etc... is the consequence of that which started the universe (be it god, the big bang, etc...). So if the definition of free will depends on things without cause, there can be no free will. You think because your neurons do their stuff. The universe has a "pre-destined" path to take, so to speak.
Another off discussion question. Why didn't god create more inteligent animals (not quantity, quality)?
Sorry if I said it wrong, I was talking about more inteligent er... birds, mammals, insects, etc...
Thank you :)
-
Originally posted by Goober5000
That looks really weird/interesting. Like a bunch of stalagmites just happened to grow in the form of a church. :eek2:
It's quite old....the main reason that bit (which IIRC is the old facade, the other half is much newer and lighter) looks almost corroded is because every single inch of it is covered in intricate carvings.
I think it was started in the 1800s or so (maybe earlier), but it's Gaudi that's famous for picking up the design later on. We didn't go in, actually - just walked around the outside.... it's actually probably become a bit tainted with commercialism, I guess. But whilst most of symbolism is lost on me (not being religious), it's a hell of a sight - as are most of the older buildings in Barcelona, particularly the older churches and the Gaudi buildings. (I like that city a lot)
(NB: actually found the website for the thing)
http://www.sagradafamilia.org/eng/noflash/index.htm
-
Animals are inteligent...they just think differently...
Scientist are descovering that they are more like us every day.
They have creativity and even culture....
In truth, I don't belive we are more perfect or supirior than animals...We just say so to fuel our ego. God does love all of his creations...
Now, if you say "If the animals are so inteligent why don't they build cathedrals, why don't they rule the world?".
Take a tribesman from some remote african tribe... are you more inteligent than him? Do you think you are worth more than him?
He doesn't rule the world, or build great things, or use high-tech...
And one of the reasons humans can build things is - they have hands and thumbs...without those tools humans would have never gotten where they are now...
Imagine a snake with a IQ of 10000... Give her plans for a simple bow and arrow... She will never be able to make it, regardless of her inteligence..
-
give 10 snakes the IQ of 10000, you'll see them putting their colective arses to use...
-
Originally posted by Ghostavo
Remember this can be applied to either side of this discussion... hehehe... it's funny seeing people quote stuff from movies and taking it too seriously. :D
Matrix should be taken seriously, its full of religious stuff etc.
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
Take a tribesman from some remote african tribe... are you more inteligent than him? Do you think you are worth more than him?
He doesn't rule the world, or build great things, or use high-tech...
Nor does he know about God n' Jebus. Once the missionaries get hold of him he'll be building churches or he'll go to Hell :nod:
-
Originally posted by Zeronet
Matrix should be taken seriously, its full of religious stuff etc.
Not really, it just really gets you thinking that anything is possible
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
Imagine a snake with a IQ of 10000... Give her plans for a simple bow and arrow... She will never be able to make it, regardless of her inteligence..
:wtf:
With an IQ of 10k she don't need the plans to start with :p Also, 1 snake with an IQ of 10k would probably be omniscent (sp?).
I told ya! God is a damned SNAKE! :p:D
-
Also, about perfection.. God isn't perfect (well, there is no god IMO but thats besides the point :p). God would still have to make choices and pefect choices don't exist.
-
Once upon the time a group of scientists were working with neural nets.
They then build a robot with long wings and no idea how to use them.
Then the scientists gave the robot a task: it should learn to fly. It should force itself to leave the solid ground.
Robot stood and thought. The hi-tech gadgets in it's entrail ticked. The robot thought and came closer and closer to idea of how to abandon gravity. Days and weeks passed.
One day the process was over and scientists gathered to gaze upon the robot, which had independantly found the way of flight.
The moment came:
Robot plucked it's wingtips into the ground and lifted itself. It stood on it's wings. It had raised it's body above the ground!
Scientists were pissed off and got drunk.
-
that's true...
we were not a perfect choice
-
Originally posted by Ghostavo
In common physics cause will always be before the effects (being in normal physics, the big bang the cause of all events in the universe). In another type of physics (temporal unless I'm mistaken) the cause can actually be after it's effects!! But either way, everything that has been happening, will happen, etc... is the consequence of that which started the universe (be it god, the big bang, etc...). So if the definition of free will depends on things without cause, there can be no free will. You think because your neurons do their stuff. The universe has a "pre-destined" path to take, so to speak.
That could only be true if you think that the physical is all that there is. If my mind is nothing more than the impulses travelling through my neurons, then pre-determinism could make sense. But Christianity explicitly denies that the physical is all there is to reality.
Also, the many complexities of causation's relation to time in advanced physics actually don't get us out of the situation I mentioned earlier. In terms of chronological order, a cause might happen after its effect, but in logical order, the cause always precedes the effect. Regardless of the chronological order of the causes and effects, they have to connected in a logical chain that starts somewhere.
To give a more concrete example, let's take the theory that the universe exists in an never-ending cycle of Big Bang-Big Crunch-Big Bang. Even if 1) we assume that the only thing that exists in reality is physical stuff, and 2) we assume that the behaviour of everything within this neverending cycle is pre-determined, we still have a problem. The endless cycle might give an unbroken chain of cause-and-effect for the things within the system, but it does not explain why the system itself is there at all. Why is there an endlessly looping universe instead of nothing? Saying "Because there is an endlessly looping universe" doesn't answer the question. You can either say "Because of something else," or say "I dunno, it's just there." If you choose the first option, you have to move onto something else and ask why it is there instead of nothing at all. If you choose the second option you have arbitrarily stopped your line of questioning before you need to (not a good way of learning about things). In either case, eventually you have to come to something that is "just there". No matter what you do, something somewhere has to exist that has no cause, but is instead the source of causation.
And if there must be one, why not more?
P.S: Incidentally, I choose not to stop my chain of questioning until I arrive at an entity who, by definition, has to be causeless if he exists. That is God. Stopping with just the physical universe seems really arbitrary to me--there is a perfectly good explanation for why the universe is there, so not taking it seems to me like a cop-out that is probably motivated by something besides a search for truth.
-
hey Sesquid, haven't seen you in a while
good to see you again :)
-
The problem with cause and effect is that it can be applied to negate any theory about the universe, be it physical or religious. Like what you said about the big bang/big crunch cycle, but to a different "theory"... What came before god? God had to be created. If not, then there's a problem of timing as... how do you define time within that instance? It brings problems to any theory or belief.
I don't mean to offend you but if one of us keeps putting facts into the table and the other one dismisses it because of their beliefs this is not going anywhere... What is suppose to be the function of the brain in Christianity?
And also, the big crunch theory has been... put aside due to evidences that there isn't enough mass in the universe to stop it's "growth".
-
Originally posted by Ghostavo
The problem with cause and effect is that it can be applied to negate any theory about the universe, be it physical or religious. Like what you said about the big bang/big crunch cycle, but to a different "theory"... What came before god? God had to be created. If not, then there's a problem of timing as... how do you define time within that instance? It brings problems to any theory or belief.
By definition, God can't be created. If he were, he wouldn't be God. (The thing that created him might be the real God, but we'd have to check whether it was also created or not to determine that.) And since any chain of cause-and-effect has to have an uncaused source somewhere, no one fits the bill better than God--he is uncaused. So actually, cause-and-effect isn't a problem for monotheism, but instead is an argument for it.
Time, on the other hand, is a property of the created universe. Time only starts when the universe begins. God by himself does not exist in time--he is timeless. He is able to reach in and interact with us within time, but the concept of time does not apply to him by himself.
So, to recap our discussion so far:[list=1]
- The fact that the universe exists at all requires that there be something somewhere that a) exists without any prior cause, and b) is itself the source of a chain of cause-and-effect.
- God fits the description of "something that a) exists without any prior cause, and b) is itself the source of a chain of cause-and-effect"
- If there can be one entity who is a source of a chain of cause-and-effect, why can't there be more?
- The biblical teaching is that there are more: human beings are one example of other entities whose powers to choose their actions can be sources of chains of cause-and-effect. In other words, humans have free will.
- If humans have free will, their choice to disobey God was not determined by any prior causes.
- This means it is possible that human beings were perfect (i.e. they were what God intended them to be) before they disobeyed God.
[/list=1]
I don't mean to offend you but if one of us keeps putting facts into the table and the other one dismisses it because of their beliefs this is not going anywhere... What is suppose to be the function of the brain in Christianity?
I'm not offended. I do think we've been doing a pretty good job of using our brains in discussing Christianity, and I do think we are going somewhere. I'm simply addressing issues you raise. I haven't dismissed anything, but honestly dealt with each one. It is just that so far, using our brains and thinking carefully about things, we haven't found anything that doesn't make sense.
And also, the big crunch theory has been... put aside due to evidences that there isn't enough mass in the universe to stop it's "growth".
Oh, I know. It was just the first example that came to mind of an "ever-existing universe" theory. The argument would apply equally well to any theory of an ever-existent universe. It would apply even more easily to any theory in which the universe is not ever-existent.
This is a fun conversation, Ghostavo. :)
-
Hey Stealth. How are you doing? :)
-
Originally posted by Tiara
I told ya! God is a damned SNAKE! :p:D
:wtf:
No I'm not.
-
Time, on the other hand, is a property of the created universe. Time only starts when the universe begins. God by himself does not exist in time--he is timeless. He is able to reach in and interact with us within time, but the concept of time does not apply to him by himself.
And I quote from you know what... although it might not be exactly these words...
God created the world in 7 days
There is a problem with the cause and effect with any theory or belief system because first you would have to define time and a starting point. If "god" doesn't have a beggining than you have a problem with the time. Because it raises questions such as "Why didn't god create the universe sooner?" Saying that god was there all along is as correct as saying that the universe was there all along. Unless you have proof you can't dismiss one of them without dismissing the other as that would be like saying that A is A but B is not B.
Everything in the universe was or is caused by something else, if that previous definition of free will is your own than there is no free will.
It is just that so far, using our brains and thinking carefully about things, we haven't found anything that doesn't make sense.
If my mind is nothing more than the impulses travelling through my neurons, then pre-determinism could make sense. But Christianity explicitly denies that the physical is all there is to reality.
:wtf:
Even if free will exists than the part where they "betray" god is proof enough that they weren't perfect as previously though.
P.S.
Yeah, this is fun... especially now I am talking about Nietzche in Philosophy classes. :D That guy was a genius!!
:nervous:
-
Originally posted by Ghostavo
Nietzche ... was a genius!!
indeed.. but he did have his shortcomings
-
Originally posted by Ghostavo
And I quote from you know what... although it might not be exactly these words...
Yes, it says he completed the creation of the world in seven days. That means (within this mythology) that seven days after time began, he finished doing everything he decided to do within it.
But is is one thing to say that the universe had a beginning, and another entirely to say that God exists in time. If there is one thing that modern physics and Judeo-Christian religion agree on, it is that time starts when the universe is made, and that time is a property of this universe, and it alone. Time and space are things God created, therefore he himself is not contained by them.
It is hard for us to imagine what existence would be like in a timeless state, since we exist within time. The best way is to think of God living in an "eternal present," where all moments of time are simultaneously present to him at once. Technically, this way of imagining it is not true, but it is the closest our imaginations can get to the reality.
There is a problem with the cause and effect with any theory or belief system because first you would have to define time and a starting point.
Time begins with the creation of the universe. Call it the Big Bang or whatever. That is the moment when time starts to exist. There is no "before." There is only God in his timelessness.
If "god" doesn't have a beggining than you have a problem with the time. Because it raises questions such as "Why didn't god create the universe sooner?"
Well, there is no "sooner" because there is no time before the start of time. Like I said, we can't actually imagine what it would be like for time not to exist, but nevertheless it seems that time has a particular point when it starts, and there is no "before" before that.
Saying that god was there all along is as correct as saying that the universe was there all along. Unless you have proof you can't dismiss one of them without dismissing the other as that would be like saying that A is A but B is not B.
A God that had no beginning and a universe that had no beginning are both possible options. Go with the first, and you are a monotheist. Go with the second and you are a Hindu or Buddhist. But actually, one can't have both.
Why? Because either the universe had a beginning, or it did not have a beginning.
Monotheism in all its forms (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam being the main ones) says this: you can go back through time, and back and back, until you reach a point where you can't go back any further--there is nowhere else to go. And at that point, if you look to see what is there, you see only one thing: God. There is nothing before him. He doesn't have a beginning--he is the beginning. Time comes forth from him, he is not contained inside it.
Belief that the universe has existed forever says this: you can go back through time, and back and back and back, and you will never come to a point at which you have to stop. No matter how far back in time you go, you can always go further. Time doesn't come forth from anywhere--it is "just there" because the whole universe is "just there."
These options can't both be true. Picking which one you believe is an interesting business, but you can pick only one. The interesting bit is why someone ought to pick one over the other.
Everything in the universe was or is caused by something else,
But that is impossible. If everything had to be caused by something else, nothing would happen, because no one could get the ball rolling.
Or maybe you mean that once God got the ball rolling, everything else happens in one long chain of cause-and-effect? If that is what you mean, the answer is "Could be." But that is a pretty big claim to make without any backup. Simply insisting that it is true when I say it is false isn't making an argument--it is just insisting on something.
So, if that is what you mean--that God got things started, but everything since then has been just one long chain of cause-and-effect--why do you think so?
if that previous definition of free will is your own than there is no free will.
It is not my own. Boethius (c.480-c.525 AD) laid out a rigourous investigation of exactly what free will was, as did Augustine (IIRC), and various pagan Greek philosophers. The topic has been revisited by more recent philosophers, but no one has really advanced on Boethius' treatment of it.
To say that there is no free will is just the flip side of saying that everything is predetermined by one long chain of cause-and-effect. So my question again is, why do you think that?
Two quotes from me
:wtf:
Hm, maybe I misunderstood you earlier. When you asked me "What is the purpose of the brain in Christianity?" did you mean "Does Christianity involve thinking carefully?" or "How does Christianity understand the organ of the brain and its relation to the mind?" I thought you meant the first question, but perhaps you actually meant the second. Which is it? Because if you mean the second, then my answer wouldn't make much sense to you, and no wonder you quoted those two quotes back to me.
Even if free will exists than the part where they "betray" god is proof enough that they weren't perfect as previously though.
But no. They were supposed to be beings who could choose either way, and have a choice that was completely undetermined in any way beforehand. And that is what they were. If they were what they were supposed to be, then from God's perspective (the only one that really matters), they were perfect. Their imperfection starts only once they make that choice, in the same way that the universe starts only once God creates it. Go back before the point in time when they make that choice, and there is no more imperfection anymore. Their choice is the source of the imperfection, not an effect of it. The imperfection comes from them--it is not there beforehand.
P.S.
Yeah, this is fun... especially now I am talking about Nietzche in Philosophy classes. :D That guy was a genius!!
:nervous:
Kazan's assessment is correct. Of course, he and I would differ a bit on where Nietzche's problems lie. :) I am glad you are enjoying this too.
-
Originally posted by Ghostavo
Even if free will exists than the part where they "betray" god is proof enough that they weren't perfect as previously though.
P.S.
Yeah, this is fun... especially now I am talking about Nietzche in Philosophy classes. :D That guy was a genius!!
:nervous:
Interesting that you should mention that, since it was another (christian medieval) philosopher, I believe it was Aquino Thomas, who answered that very question.
The world in which there is free will, is more perfect than one without it, and thus what people do with their free will, has no longer got to do anything with god, was the general point of the idea
-
Originally posted by Nico
:wtf:
No I'm not.
So, you're my arch nemesis, eh? Hmm... :drevil:
-
I'll try to go through this once more, but more organised:
1 - The universe could exist without time. Time is merely another dimension. To say god doesn't exist in time is to say that the god doesn't exist in the universe. You may argue that that is true with your beliefs but that will leave problem, because then how could god "interact" with the universe without making "contact" with it?
2 - I'm not going to discuss what came before the big bang because no one on earth knows it and I'm no exception.
3)
But that is impossible. If everything had to be caused by something else, nothing would happen, because no one could get the ball rolling.
Or maybe you mean that once God got the ball rolling, everything else happens in one long chain of cause-and-effect? If that is what you mean, the answer is "Could be." But that is a pretty big claim to make without any backup. Simply insisting that it is true when I say it is false isn't making an argument--it is just insisting on something.
So, if that is what you mean--that God got things started, but everything since then has been just one long chain of cause-and-effect--why do you think so?
3.1 - I said everything in the universe was/is caused by something (the else I put earlier is wrong... something can be caused by itself). If you knew the exact position and velocity of every particle in the universe you would know everything the universe has experienced, is experiencing and will experience. If there is free will (according to those guys you mentioned) then this theory couldn't even have surfaced. If there is free will then common physics is all wrong and you cannot fly planes nor drive cars. If there is free will... noone's alive.
4)
Hm, maybe I misunderstood you earlier. When you asked me "What is the purpose of the brain in Christianity?" did you mean "Does Christianity involve thinking carefully?" or "How does Christianity understand the organ of the brain and its relation to the mind?" I thought you meant the first question, but perhaps you actually meant the second. Which is it? Because if you mean the second, then my answer wouldn't make much sense to you, and no wonder you quoted those two quotes back to me.
First you said that thought is not a "product" of the brain and then you said it is. What I meant to ask is if thought is not what the brain "produces" then what does it do? (crude question... can't "refine" it).
5)
Their choice is the source of the imperfection, not an effect of it. The imperfection comes from them--it is not there beforehand.
So according to this, the choice itself the imperfection? You realize that by saying this nothing can become perfect if it wasn't perfect since the beggining... of the universe or... another thing I will refer later. If it wasn't perfect since the "beggining" then the being that it is now is suffering from imperfection of it's earlier state and doesn't become perfect.
Simple Example (I'm not going to take this till the beggining of the universe for logical reasons):
- Bob kills dude. Bob behaves "perfectly" afterwards. Bob is not perfect because he killed dude.
Either that or... that means that if the choice itself is imperfect, everything is perfect in almost every "frame" in time.
5 - He was kind of a prophet... in his own way. And he gave birth to characters like "Super-Man" and the Andromeda's "Nietzschians" :D
-
Originally posted by Kazan
indeed.. but he did have his shortcomings
What do you mean? I only know the basics of what he believed, but hardly enough to explain his shortcomings.
-
I think he meant about his life, not his beliefs...
-
Originally posted by Ghostavo
The universe could exist without time. Time is merely another dimension. To say god doesn't exist in time is to say that the god doesn't exist in the universe. You may argue that that is true with your beliefs but that will leave problem, because then how could god "interact" with the universe without making "contact" with it?
Are actually reading what you're writing? How can universe exist forever? How can it exist without time, when we know that the universe and everything in it is subjected to the laws of physics and they prohibit that scenario....
-
I'm saying that the universe could exist without time as I could say the universe could exist without X, Y or Z (whatever their proper names are). I'm not saying that the universe doesn't have time. The universe has as much right to exist forever as god, although most theories nowadays are of a "borning" universe (big bang).
By the way, define time, the full definition of time.
-
I think Time is something that happens to the Universe, not vice versa. The Universe exists as is, whether time is present or not. Time can affect it, but it has no physical hand in creation or destruction, it's the universe itself that uses Time to do that ;)
Indeed, the 'universe' can exist without matter, a lot of people make the mistake of thinking of the Universe as the glowy bits, which it isn't, it's all the spaces inbetween the glowy bits ;)
-
Time is really only a measurement of change, all measurements of time are relative to rates of change
-
Originally posted by Flipside
Indeed, the 'universe' can exist without matter, a lot of people make the mistake of thinking of the Universe as the glowy bits, which it isn't, it's all the spaces inbetween the glowy bits ;)
I'd say both are needed, the space and the bits. One makes not much sense without the other :)
-
Actually no, the universe could be just space. Matter what remained when the anti-matter "colapsed" (don't know the exact word) (according to today's theory). If matter hadn't got a slightly longer "life-time" than anti-matter, the names would be reverse and we would be made of "anti-matter".
-
So, as it could be just emptiness, its impossible for the universe not to exist? There is no difference betwixt "universe" and "no universe".
As such, any definition we'll ever be able to put up won't catch its essence.
-
somethingness and nothingness are defined off eachother and therefore it's just a failure of our language/understanding to ask "when did the universe come into existance"
-
What is important I guess, is the fact that there had to be something for the universe to happen 'to'.
This thread is rather amusing with the speech filter on ;)
Edit : And you're right Aldo, it is the lot, what I really meant was 'theres a lot more universe between the stars', but I sort of typed it wrong ;)
-
Rebuttal originating from the wisdom of Flipside
This thread is rather amusing with the speech filter on ;)
Thy words be true, I might saveth this thread whilst it remaineth in ye Olde English. ;)
-
Originally posted by Ghostavo
I'll try to go through this once more, but more organised:
1 - The universe could exist without time. Time is merely another dimension. To say god doesn't exist in time is to say that the god doesn't exist in the universe. You may argue that that is true with your beliefs but that will leave problem, because then how could god "interact" with the universe without making "contact" with it?
The Christian understanding is that God created time and is able to reach into in and interact with us. Most technically, it isn't that God doesn't exist within time, it is that he is not contained by time. He is bigger than time, both in it and out of it.
YOu will recall that I said "God by himself is timeless" Once he has created a universe that has time, he is no longer by himself, so now the situation is more complex--he is both in time and out of it.
2 - I'm not going to discuss what came before the big bang because no one on earth knows it and I'm no exception.
Exactly. No one knows what came before because there was no "before". That is the moment when time starts. The question is only whether God was "just there" at the first instant, or not.
3.1 - I said everything in the universe was/is caused by something (the else I put earlier is wrong... something can be caused by itself). If you knew the exact position and velocity of every particle in the universe you would know everything the universe has experienced, is experiencing and will experience. If there is free will (according to those guys you mentioned) then this theory couldn't even have surfaced. If there is free will then common physics is all wrong and you cannot fly planes nor drive cars. If there is free will... noone's alive.
Ah, I see what you mean now. I do, however, disagree.
Before I get to my objection, I would also like to make one small point on the side as well: to say that something caused itself technically doesn't make sense. It strips the word "cause" of its meaning--if something is causing itself, it has to already just be there in order to cause itself, and that means it really isn't being caused at all, because it is already "just there." If someone says that some things can cause themselves, what they are really saying is that some things are "just there."
But now for my actually objection:
You say that if free will exists, then physics is all wrong. This claim is based on the idea that if things happen without causes, then we cannot investigate them using the scientific method (because the scientific method can only investigate things related by cause-and-effect). But the scientific method works, so things must be related by cause-and-effect.
The problem I see is fairly simple. It is as simple as replacing the idea of "some" with the idea of "all."
We start by saying 1) that science is good at investigating things related by cause-and-effect. Then we note 2) that science is really good at telling us things about the world. Then we say 3) that if everything can be explained by science, then 4) the whole world must be subject to cause-and-effect.
The problem lies in the jump from 2 to 3. It is one thing to say that science tells us some things about the world. It is a whole different thing to say that it tells us everything about the world. In our minds it is an easy slide to make, but that easy slide is actually a fantastic leap across a huge chasm. How on earth did we go from saying that some things in the world can be explained by science to saying that everything in the world can be???!!
Science is only one method of knowing things. There are many others. History, philosophy, literature, art, emotional relationships, physical experience (e.g. learning to ride a bicycle), and more are all ways in which we come to understand this world better. History doesn't use the scientific method at all. History uses empathy and imagination to arrange random facts into a meaningful story. There are no experiements, no unbreakable laws of cause-and-effect, and yet history is an important and vital way of understanding the world. It really does explain things.
If some parts of the world really can be explained without making reference to cause-and-effect, what reason is there for insisting that everything has to be explained by cause-and-effect? Why can't we be more reasonable and say that those aspects of the world that are explained by cause-and-effect are explained by cause-and-effect, and those aspects that are not are not?
Here's a simple illustration to show what I mean:
Imagine a pool table with a bunch of pool balls on it. Now let's say that we understand all the rules that govern how the pool balls will behave if you hit them with a cue, and that we know where all the balls are on the table and how they are moving at the moment. Once I find out how hard you decide to hit the cueball with your cue, I should be able to say what the effects will be on all the balls. But first I have to know how hard you are going to hit the cueball. All my knowledge of the rules governing the pool balls and their positions and velocities tell me nothing about what you are going to decide to do, and not knowing what you are going to do doesn't make my knowledge of the rules and positions and velocites invalid.
In the same way, the possibility of sources of causation (independent free will) outside of the system of cause-and-effect (the material world) in no way invalidates the rules of the system.
4)First you said that thought is not a "product" of the brain and then you said it is. What I meant to ask is if thought is not what the brain "produces" then what does it do? (crude question... can't "refine" it).
Ah, I see, I misunderstood you, and so then you thought I was answering a different question than what I thought I was answering. No wonder we are so confused on this point.
Okay, so to answer the question you were really asking: in essence, it isn't that the firing of the brain's synapses produces thought, but that the mind causes the firing of the brain's synapses.
To go into a little more detail, let me just show you three different models for understanding the relationship between the mind and the brain: the Greek model, the modern materialist model, and the Hebrew model.
The Greek model is the easiest one to start with. Basically, the Greek idea was that there are two separate entities, the mind/soul, and the body. The soul lived in the body, but the two were basically different things. In this model, the connection between the soul and the body was always a difficult thing to explain.
We in Western culture inherited this idea from the Greeks, but over the last few centuries as the dominant understanding of the universe has shifted to belief that the material world is the only sort of reality there is, our understanding of the mind/body relation has changed too. Basically, since we only believe in material reality, we took the Greek idea and cut off the soul part, leaving only the body. When we do that, we have to think of the mind as just a side-effect of the brain, a sort of secretion of our nerve cells.
The third model comes not from the Greeks but from the Hebrews (from whom Christianity comes). In the Hebrew mind, the universe is not devided into these two different material and spiritual realms, but both material and spiritual are together part of one reality. In this understanding, the two cannot be separated, but neither is the mind just a side-effect of the brain's operation. The human being is one whole being, both physical and spiritual at once.
If we use this model (which is a bit difficult to get used to if you come from a materialist perspective), then what we have is the mind controlling the brain, not the brain producing the mind. In other words, the brain provides the means by which the mind is manifested in the world, rather than being the source of the mind.
If all that seemed too convoluted, just go back to the essential point.
5) So according to this, the choice itself the imperfection? You realize that by saying this nothing can become perfect if it wasn't perfect since the beggining... of the universe or... another thing I will refer later. If it wasn't perfect since the "beggining" then the being that it is now is suffering from imperfection of it's earlier state and doesn't become perfect.
Simple Example (I'm not going to take this till the beggining of the universe for logical reasons):
- Bob kills dude. Bob behaves "perfectly" afterwards. Bob is not perfect because he killed dude.
Either that or... that means that if the choice itself is imperfect, everything is perfect in almost every "frame" in time.
Essentially, what I am saying is that the moment they made the bad choice is the moment at which the imperfection starts. The choice is the source of the imperfection, which will continue on ever afterwards until God fixes us on the "Last Day".
-
Universe is subjected to the laws of physics.....period.
It cannot have existed forever, for it's against those very laws...
EDIt: Who turned on this speech filter, I say?
-
You are assuming that the Laws of Physics are known in their entirery and are 100% correct Trashman ;)
-
1 and 2 art answered. Now for the others...
3)
to sayeth that something caused itself technically doesn't make sense. It strips the word "cause" of its meaning--if something is causing itself, it has to already just be there in order to cause itself, and that means it really isn't being caused at all, because it is already "just there." If someone says that some things can cause themselves, what they art really saying is that some things art "just there."
What I meant to sayeth that something wast caused by itself is for example, a property of one object makes it do something, such as an electron being atracted by a proton due to it's charge. It's parcially right I knowest because the proton also atracts the electron.
This claim is based on the idea that if things happen without causes, then we cannot investigate them using the scientific method (because the scientific method can only investigate things related by cause-and-effect).
No, I said that if free wilt exists as you told before, then everything has free will. If everything has free will, you can't predict what is going to happen. If you can't predict what is going to happen, science is all wrong. That is my point, sort of...
4 - There is a problem with that, as the brain not only "controls" the body but also "gathers" a variety of information. There art cases whither people with a part of the brain damaged art unable to remember short term events. How dost the soul/body thing explains that?
5 - Read more carefully what I posted, I talked about that eventuality. See Bob. If his decision manifests itself even after his crime, than perfection is impossible after being imperfect. So, concluding, no one can become perfect.
P.S.
Sorry if I misread something, this english is getting medieval on my mind. :D
:EDIT:
Forgot to mention,
Science is only one method of knowing things. There art many others. History, philosophy, literature, art, emotional relationships, physical experience (e.g. learning to ride a bicycle),
History is a branch of science, philosophy is basicly logic, art and emotional relationships are now being "discovered" by science and physical experience is basicly what simple science is all about really.
-
Univerese as in - the space in which all those starts and nebuals are cannot be eternal....
Time and space are interconnected...Without time there is no space, and vice-versa...
We know that time came into beeing with the big bang, which means, so did space...
SIDE NOTE:
I recall some scientist doing a interesting calculation...
At the very begining of the universe, in the very micro-seconds after the big bang, there was a 1:billion chance that atoms will be formed in a way to allow the universe as we know to exist - t o allow planets and life to be created at all - and yet it happened....
Coincidance or God?
-
You know that probabilities are only chances...
If you roll a roulette wheel a million times the chances any specific combination coming out is astronomical. Yet, one combination comes out...
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
Univerese as in - the space in which all those starts and nebuals are cannot be eternal....
Time and space are interconnected...Without time there is no space, and vice-versa...
We know that time came into beeing with the big bang, which means, so did space...
SIDE NOTE:
I recall some scientist doing a interesting calculation...
At the very begining of the universe, in the very micro-seconds after the big bang, there was a 1:billion chance that atoms will be formed in a way to allow the universe as we know to exist - t o allow planets and life to be created at all - and yet it happened....
Coincidance or God?
Well, how do you know the big bang was the first? Maybe it was just the first successfull Big Bang - maybe there were billions or trillions of Big Bangs, which failed. Assuming there was a big bang, of course - i'm not sure we can ever know or prove how the universe was created.
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
I recall some scientist doing a interesting calculation...
At the very begining of the universe, in the very micro-seconds after the big bang, there was a 1:billion chance that atoms will be formed in a way to allow the universe as we know to exist - t o allow planets and life to be created at all - and yet it happened....
Coincidance or God?
Coincidence. Nothing more.
It's amazing the number of people who use this arguement but the arguement is very poor because quite simply had the universe not turned out this way we would not be here to notice. It's quite possible there have been countless universes that failed. Until you can prove that is incorrect the coincidence arguement is dead in the water.
-
all arguments based upon probability are irrelevant.
Basically you made the "universe is soo fit to us!" argument - which is normally in the form "the planet is so fit to us!"
WRONG WAY AROUND
We are fit to the planet
We are fit to the universe
-
Rebuttal originating from the wisdom of aldo_14
Well, how do you knowest the big bang wast the first? Maybe t'was just the first successfull Big Bang - maybe there were billions or trillions of Big Bangs, which failed. Assuming there wast a big bang, of course - i'm not sure we can ever knowest or prove how the universe wast created.
Of course, that assumes that there is a Big Bang/Big Crunch cycle. I personally prefer the slow energy death model present in the other two possibilities (insufficient mass causes the growth to never stop/exact mass required for equilibrium).
-
Btw, why exactly is it that an universe building out of a singularity has a different life each round?
Is it the amount of energy that changes (if so, wouldn't the pulsating universe die off, sooner or later)?
I guess the "variable" must anyway exist within the singularity, if that is all that exists.
Edit: probably the answer lies in the quantum theory, in that it is probabilistic.
-
The amount of matter/energy in the universe never changes. The Law of Matter/Energy Conservation: Matter/energy can be neither created or destroyed. And yes, I know I wrote matter/energy, that is indeed the proper term.
-
There art some points in the idea of "pulsating universe" that I never had the energy to clarify to myself.
E.g, how do the photons emitted like 15 billion years before the collapse end up "falling" into the singularity?
-
Originally posted by Grey Wolf 2009
Of course, that assumes that there is a Big Bang/Big Crunch cycle. I personally prefer the slow energy death model present in the other two possibilities (insufficient mass causes the growth to never stop/exact mass required for equilibrium).
:nod:
Well, yeah. I just couldn't remember the other theories :)
-
Sorry, RL dragged me away for a few days. :)
Originally posted by Ghostavo
3) What I meant to say that something was caused by itself is for example, a property of one object makes it do something, such as an electron being atracted by a proton due to it's charge. It's parcially right I knowest because the proton also atracts the electron.
Okay, so what you mean is that an object's behaviour is partially explained by characteristics it has. That is different from saying that something causes its own existence, which is the issue.
No, I said that if free will exists as you told before, then everything has free will.
Why would everything need to have free will for free will to exist? Rocks don't need to have free will. Hamburgers don't need to have free will. Free will only needs to be had be some entities, according to what I said.
4 - There is a problem with that, as the brain not only "controls" the body but also "gathers" a variety of information. There art cases whither people with a part of the brain damaged art unable to remember short term events. How dost the soul/body thing explains that?
When I was trying to write out the Hebrew understanding, I think I said it best right at the end, when I said that the brain is the means by which the mind is manifested in the world. Without the brain, the mind would be unable to interact with this world, neither knowing it nor affecting it. You could say that the brain gives flesh to the mind. But it would be better to say that there is really only one thing, and that this thing is simultaneously material and spiritual.
Often, when people suffer brain damage partway through life, they complain afterwards that their minds can't interact with the world the way they did before. They'll get really frustrated and say "Argh! I should be able to do this. I used to be able to." They'll sometimes complain that it feels like they can't bring back things they know they know, or that they can't learn things they know they should be able to learn. To the Hebrew understanding, what is happening here is this: the damage to the brain kills some of it, which causes the mind/soul/spirit/whatever-you-want-to-call-it to be torn apart from the physical world. When we die, this tearing apart becomes complete--what was meant to be one seamless entity is ripped apart, and our physical bodes die while our spirits (or rather, the shreds of our spirits) descend to what the Hebrew's called Sheol to await resurrection (when our bodies will be raised to life, and reunited with our spirits to make one whole being again).
5 - Read more carefully what I posted, I talked about that eventuality. See Bob. If his decision manifests itself even after his crime, than perfection is impossible after being imperfect. So, concluding, no one can become perfect.
What he did will never magically disappear, no. But remember what we said earlier, that whether something is perfect depends on what it is supposed to be. If the criteria of what the thing is supposed to be change, so does its status regarding perfection/imperfection. The Christian promise that we will be made perfect at the resurrection is the promise that God will make us to be what he now wants us to be. The original objectives (e.g. that we should never sin, nor die) get replaced with new ones (e.g. that we never sin again, nor die again).
Am I being clear in my explanation?
History is a branch of science, philosophy is basicly logic, art and emotional relationships art now being "discovered" by science and physical experience is basicly what simple science is all about really.
History is not a branch of science at all. In higher education, fields of study are broadly classified into two categories: the sciences and the humanities. The first includes things like genetic biology, electrical enginneering, mathematics, and so on. The second includes literature, law, philosophy, and so on. History is always classified under the humanities category.
Logic is only one tool available to the philosopher. Philosophers use many other mental faculties than just their sense of logic. Creative intuition, for example, is indispensible to philosophy. Logic can analyse ideas, but it takes creativity to come up with new ideas and new ways of seeing things.
The sort of "discovery" of art and emotion by science that you mention is, to be specific, the recognition by scientists and philosophers of science that scientific knowledge is not the be-all and end-all of knowledge. Simply said, people are starting to recognise that science can only tell you about some things, and that you need e.g. art to tell you about others.
With physical experience, I meant that knowing how to ride a bike is not the same as conducting many experiments about the physics of bicycle riding. I can run tests on a bicycle and its rider, and then I'll know about riding a bicycle. But I won't know how to ride a bicycle until I get on and learn to do it. Theoretical knowledge and practical knowledge are not the same thing.
-
All that talk of pefection is meaningless....we are not perfect, nor have we ever been perfect. You can argue for the next cantury about your views and theories of perfection, but it will change squat...
The Big Cycle theory sucks. Recent studies showed it cannot stand... So the coincidence theory is quite valid...
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
All that talk of pefection is meaningless....we are not perfect, nor have we ever been perfect.
Just look at the grammar on this board :p