View Full Version : What is your Religion: Part II
What is your religion? If it's not listed below, please specify. Thanks!
-ZainDustin
I be a Christian, and Proud of it!
:smile:
-ZainDustin
Byzantine Mercenary
03-12-2006, 02:14
wow!, 100% of the sample, (2) are christians!
Kagemusha
03-12-2006, 02:17
I think heretic Christian is pretty much what i am.~;)
Lol, I seriously think it won't last. Would be nice if it did though.
-ZainDustin
Mongoose
03-12-2006, 02:41
Athiest*, though I would aslo have liked a "Godless Infidel" option.
Which, yes, is a valid answer for the question, given that it means that you have no religion.
Correct. Atheism is the same thing as Religion-less, which becomes a religion in itself
-ZainDustin
lancelot
03-12-2006, 02:52
Atheist to the core.
Superman doesnt exist, the Force doesnt exist, so God doesnt either.
Divinus Arma
03-12-2006, 02:55
I'm an "everythingist". Essentially I believe that God loves variety in all things, and so loves variety in our worship of him.
Holding a belief that "your" religion is the only true religion is arrogant and impossible to prove.
However, I am not so arrogant myself as to believe that you are wrong. Instead I believe that no one can ever truly know the will and intent of the Lord. This view is reflected in all religious teachings.
One more point: I also do not believ in Original Sin. This concept has lead to guilt-based existential perspectives, a view I cannot embrace. It would be better to allow humanity to die out, then to allow one human soul to perish for all eternity in damnation for merely failing to worship in a specific way. Thus, I can never accept Christianity, but I accept the fact that it is impossible for any living man or woman to know anything for 100% certainty.
To me, faith is believing in something that you know cannot possibly be true. It takes no faith to believe in, and worship, the Lord. This is because purpose defines reality. If there is purpose in one thing, then there exists purpose in all things.
Since when is Superman (A recentish CARTOON) the same as God?
How did the Universe come into being?
Just some questions, nothing personal or anything.
-ZainDustin
Edit: These questions are for Atheists, Lancelot in particular.
Divinus Arma
03-12-2006, 03:29
Since when is Superman (A recentish CARTOON) the same as God?
He is comparing God to a bedtime story. His view of God is the same as our view of Superman, the Easter Bunny, and Santa Claus.
How did the Universe come into being?
I'm no atheist, but I'll play anyway. An atheist views the universe as primarily the object of chance. Essentially, the view is held that initially all energy in the universe was concentrated and that a chance occurence caused this energy to interact with itself in a way that resulted in massive and total instability. The result is our big bang theory. The idea that order of any kind has formed from the chaos of this energy, is due in part to the realtionship between chaos, energy, order, and probablity.
Consider the following:
Imagine an empty space. Devoid of light, of objects, of heat or cold, of any impule whatsoever. Now consider an object of energy, a positive impule. This particle of energy can, may, may not, will, or will not act in any manner whatsoever. Will it double itslef? Can it? Will it not? Will it move or remain static? Can it? What if their are two similar particles of energy? Will they interact through attraction? Interact through negative attraction? Will they be netrual to each other? Now multiple this by infinity- an unknown quantity of energetic material in existence. This is chaos.
The difference between atheists and believers is essentially the relationship between chaos, order, and energy.
An atheist believes that this chaos, through chance alone, has interacted with itself to eventually become the current state of things. The existence of this energy is indisputable. How the energy initially came to be is irrelevant- it simply exists. This notion is furthered by scientifically solvent principles that matter cannot be destroyed- it can only alter its form.
On the other hand, someone who believes in God sees the order as evidence of God. A believer would see the relationship between chaos, order, and energy from a different perspective. The guiding principle behind this is that chaos itself is impossible. No true chaos actually exists. If true chaos existed, then that would mean that order could not exist, because the two are mutually exclusive. The question then becomes one of explaining our perception of chaos. This is where predictable chaos fills the gap for religious orderists. In essence, if chaos were to be engaged within defined limitations, then chaos itself could be made predictable. If chaos is predictable, the it is useful. Now we come to religion. Chaos can only be made predictable through purpose. By assigning intent to chaotic exchange, it can be controlled through prediction.
That is why I say, if there is purpose in one thing, then there is purpose in all things. Chaos is made predictable through purpose. This purpose is imposed by the will of God.
You said a lot of words, without saying a whole lot, in the sense of explaining how the Universe was created. You only mentioned a boat-load stuff about chaos, which is great. Anyway, the idea of matter not getting destroyed is great and all, but where did it all come from. It HAD to have come from somewhere.
-ZainDustin
Divinus Arma
03-12-2006, 04:00
You said a lot of words, without saying a whole lot, in the sense of explaining how the Universe was created. You only mentioned a boat-load stuff about chaos, which is great. Anyway, the idea of matter not getting destroyed is great and all, but where did it all come from. It HAD to have come from somewhere.
Actually, I side "a lot of words" which has a much greater meaning. Put this information into application.
It explains everything. The Lord does not act in some imaginery 4th dimension. He is a living God. His acts are thus visible for study in our lives. The evidence of His will surrounds us. The purpose behind His will is what escapes humanity.
Consider this: Close you eyes and let the world evaporate from your consciousness. Ignore the sounds, the smells, your breathing. Ignore your very mind telling you that this is stupid and what is the point.
Consider this state as the perspective of God. But the difference between you and God is that He would remain in this state for eternity, while you, a mere mortal, will perish.
Existence, our existince, is His purpose. The purpose of God's will is existence itself. We live for God's pleasure. And all religious texts offer that information.
He created the "universe" as an environment. But imagine a fish tank with no fish.
He created living this that will serve him automatically. They are pre-programmed to serve his will. Thus there is no good or evil in their actions. Their will is God's will.
Then he created humans. Unique as can be in that we have free choice. We can do the will of God or we can refuse. And it is this choice that defines not us, but the Lord.
By choosing to act as the Lord desires, we fufill his purpose. Our will reinforces his will. We are his reason for existence, and He is ours.
But what about violence, murder, senseless acts of selfishness?
That is our actions against God's will.
What about natural disasters and random accidents that cause death and mutilation?
That is the environment that God has placed us in. In order for it to exist, there must exist some chaos. We cannot exist ourselves without this environment. And God works within his creation, not outside of it.
What about Big Bang?
That is God's will. Let there be light!!!
What about evolution?
Again, the Lord works within his creation. We do not "magically appear". You are the product of living material that has existed for thousands, if not milions of years. We did not appear out of thin air. We came from genetic material that has existed for longer than recorded history.
Consider the concept of adam and eve. Before "the apple" they were unable to differentiate between good and evil. Thus they were incapable of following God's will voluntarily. An event, call it an apple or whatever you wish, occurred that transformed the human consciousness into what it is now. That event was the will of God. And it is the reason I do not believe in "Original Sin" as is presented by Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. We should not be regretful of that event. We should embrace it! And thank God for giving us the gift of knowledge of Good and Evil so that we may voluntarily choose to do his will.
You explained yourself very well, thank you. In comment to your talk about evolution, the bible says he used the dirt from the Earth to form our bodies, and breathed in our nostrils to give us life. So, Evolution looks shaky from that prospective.
-ZainDustin
Divinus Arma
03-12-2006, 04:22
In comment to your talk about evolution, the bible says he used the dirt from the Earth to form our bodies, and breathed in our nostrils to give us life. So, Evolution looks shaky from that prospective.
Oh, not at all my friend. You see, since matter cannot be destroyed, only "recycled", our bodies did indeed come from the earth. Our bodies are up of substances taken directly from digested plant and animal matter. This plant and animal matter itself did not come from nothing. The plants grew from a combination of nutrients in the soil, oxygen, adn water. So, in that sense, we most certinaly come from the dirt itself.
Consider further- Evolution explains that man, through a lengthy process, came from a series of less and less capable and adaptable beings. The very bottom of this step is the creation of life itself- a single-celled being with just the right balance of properties (probably a simple early form ofplant life). This was then "injected" with the ability to govern it's own behavior in accoradance with the programmed will of God. It became the difference between dirt and, well, living dirt. It would be indistinguishable to us. What is a dead man? He is not living, but yet he is made up of material that once was alive. What is the difference between a dead man and dirt? Nothing. The cells have ceased to be self-governing. That is the only difference between life and dirt.
But God would not create a man from thin air. He works within his own creation to achieve what we see today. YOU are the direct product of that "living dirt". YOU are actually a very very old being. You were not "created" at the day of your conception. You, or what would become you, existed in living material for millions of years. We are all actually much older than ourselves.
It is a misperception when we say our age is "35" or "12". That is merely the age of your present state.
Interesting... There are a lot of interpretations, and that's where God comes in. He is the one who gives you the feeling of what's right. That's where induvidual belief is, and some people just don't listen.
-ZainDustin
Divinus Arma
03-12-2006, 04:41
Interesting... There are a lot of interpretations, and that's where God comes in. He is the one who gives you the feeling of what's right. That's where induvidual belief is, and some people just don't listen.
Well, I disagree that interpretation is where God comes in. God comes in before that. It we who do the interpreting, and many times we who do the MISinterpreting.
I do not believe that God wants to "work from behind the curtain", like the wizard of oz. Nor does he work in mysterious ways.
God wants us to find him. Through science. At that point, all knees will bend. And humanity will be changed for the better. We will still have choice, but the relevance of that choice will be real. Because now, people can act like they do not have a choice by arguing that there is in God.
Take away the mystery and we do not take away choice. We make the choice more real than ever before.
Your writing is very poetic.
I believe that God can plant the seed in interpreting things.
I'm going to go for the night, so, I will talk to you later.
-ZainDustin
Big_John
03-12-2006, 05:18
as in the other thread i voted "other". as i have no religion, it seemed the best choice.
Samurai Waki
03-12-2006, 05:28
Don't Rightfully know... don't really give a rat's ***. I'm one of those all or nothing sorta guys, if I chose to follow christianity again I'd probably be one of those wack-job guys calling for a new crusade in the middle east.
Uesugi Kenshin
03-12-2006, 05:36
Atheism is not a religion. But yes I am an atheist...
Reenk Roink
03-12-2006, 07:13
"Other" once again...
Still searchin'...
Correct. Atheism is the same thing as Religion-less, which becomes a religion in itself
-ZainDustin
Sigh, how many times... :no:
I am an atheist.
God exists. But then God is a very flexible idea no? Is he a destroyer? The suprere judge who will strike down any who disobey his will? Or is he merciful and loving? Will she accept all who do well to those around them. Maybe she doesn't care, moving about the world like a child in a sandbox, destroying creating as he sees fit. Maybe god is the sum total of existance?
Personally I don't care. If God wants to smack me for helping people, but doing it outside her rules, well then he is a god I don't want to deal with.
As a side note I do like the concept of the Jewish Satan as I understand it, he exists not as the Lord of Evil and God's nemisis but as a servant of God who challenges people. Am I mistaken in my understanding?
Zalmoxis
03-12-2006, 09:31
How is heathen a religion?
Shaka_Khan
03-12-2006, 09:48
Now I'm not into Satanism. Anyway, I've heard of Satanism for a long time, but I don't understand where they get the laws of Satanism. Do they make them up? Do they follow what Satan did by luring people to do evil? Maybe I'll google it.
Avicenna
03-12-2006, 11:05
You said a lot of words, without saying a whole lot, in the sense of explaining how the Universe was created. You only mentioned a boat-load stuff about chaos, which is great. Anyway, the idea of matter not getting destroyed is great and all, but where did it all come from. It HAD to have come from somewhere.
-ZainDustin
And surely if everything has to come from somewhere so does your God. Where did he come from?
Reenk Roink
03-12-2006, 15:17
And surely if everything has to come from somewhere so does your God. Where did he come from?
Wasn't He always there? :inquisitive:
Strike For The South
03-12-2006, 15:30
SOTHERN BAPTIST:2thumbsup:
Kralizec
03-12-2006, 15:57
Agnostic, with some interest in deism (why isn't that an option anyway?)
master of the puppets
03-12-2006, 16:03
yeah throw some deism up there, thats where i stand.
And surely if everything has to come from somewhere so does your God. Where did he come from?
According to the bible God is outside of time, so there is no way for us to be able to understand it.
-ZainDustin
InsaneApache
03-12-2006, 17:28
Correct. Atheism is the same thing as Religion-less, which becomes a religion in itself
No. no and thrice no. Atheism in not a religion.
Atheism, in its broadest sense, is an absence of belief in the existence of gods. This definition includes as atheists both those who assert that there are no gods, and those who make no claim about whether gods exist or not.
link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism)
I can understand why some people who hold superstititious beliefs cannot understand an absence of belief, as it runs counter to everything they hold sacred.
I used to be a Christian, and then I learn to think for myself.
Another rare topic that JAG and I completely agree on.
Bar Kochba
03-12-2006, 17:47
hassidic jew YAY!!!
lancelot
03-12-2006, 18:05
Since when is Superman (A recentish CARTOON) the same as God?
Edit: These questions are for Atheists, Lancelot in particular.
I was trying to suggest that-
A- I have no evidence that Superman exists. Unitl I see him, I have no sensible reason to just believe he exists.
B- I have never seen/heard from/whatever God. By the same token as Superman, I have no sensible reason to believe God exists.
Until such time as God/superman prove their existence, I submit neither exists. And furthermore- If you believe in God, you must logically be inclined to accept that superman exists also. Which I doubt many people would.
I am also suggesting that to believe in God because you believe he has spoken to you/you have seen him/felt his presence etc etc is no justifiable evidence as to his existence.
There is so much of the human mind we dont understand, we naturally ascribe anything we cant understand to a higher power. Which I think is unwarrented and premature.
If I went around saying I am a real jedi knight and I believe in the Force, people would think I was nuts...what is the difference with any of the major religions? The only difference is the major religions have some 2000years of clouded and muddled 'backstory' that for some bizzare reason somehow legitimises it.
Mongoose
03-12-2006, 18:35
Correct. Atheism is the same thing as Religion-less, which becomes a religion in itself
-ZainDustin
Not quite what I meant. When I said that it was a valid answer, I meant that since it's a fancy way of saying "I have no religion", it answers the question just fine.
How can you have a religion with no faith?
IrishMike
03-12-2006, 18:40
I'm a anti-organized churches christian.
Alexanderofmacedon
03-12-2006, 18:55
I'm an "everythingist". Essentially I believe that God loves variety in all things, and so loves variety in our worship of him.
Holding a belief that "your" religion is the only true religion is arrogant and impossible to prove.
However, I am not so arrogant myself as to believe that you are wrong. Instead I believe that no one can ever truly know the will and intent of the Lord. This view is reflected in all religious teachings.
One more point: I also do not believ in Original Sin. This concept has lead to guilt-based existential perspectives, a view I cannot embrace. It would be better to allow humanity to die out, then to allow one human soul to perish for all eternity in damnation for merely failing to worship in a specific way. Thus, I can never accept Christianity, but I accept the fact that it is impossible for any living man or woman to know anything for 100% certainty.
To me, faith is believing in something that you know cannot possibly be true. It takes no faith to believe in, and worship, the Lord. This is because purpose defines reality. If there is purpose in one thing, then there exists purpose in all things.
I love you...
Alexanderofmacedon
03-12-2006, 18:57
I'm a anti-organized churches christian.
And you too...
I'm just going to summarize my beliefs in a few sentences.
I believe that the Christian Bible is true, 100%. I believe that it has many different interpretations, but in all reality it only has one true interpretation for different things. I believe that Jesus Christ is the Messiah, he is God's son, and that God is the divine creator of all things. 'Nuff said.
If you are one who believes the bible, but disregards parts of it, you aren't doing the right thing.
-ZainDustin
_Martyr_
03-12-2006, 21:27
Do you believe in the literal story of the Creation?
Yes, because I believe God has the power to do anything he wants.
-ZainDustin
Alexanderofmacedon
03-12-2006, 21:35
So god is a dictator!
_Martyr_
03-12-2006, 21:35
So, the world is in your belief about 6500 years old?
I believe that when God created the Earth, he didn't create a baby Earth (Adam wasn't a baby when created). So in real life, it's probably in the thousands, but there could be some set by God fossils of animals that could date back to very old.
-ZainDustin
Alexanderofmacedon
03-12-2006, 21:40
...
God took a lot of time on all this didn't he?
He is divine, and outside of time. He's pretty awesome.
-ZainDustin
_Martyr_
03-12-2006, 21:42
According to the literal interpretation of the Bible and Creationists, the Earth is 6500 years old. Do you believe this literally or are you interpreting this, away from its literal meaning?
Alexanderofmacedon
03-12-2006, 21:43
He is divine, and outside of time. He's pretty awesome.
-ZainDustin
Yeah if he iss real, then he REALLY pwns us all...
_Martyr_
03-12-2006, 21:50
How would you respond to the charge of explaining Carbon dating?
could you explain further?
doc_bean
03-12-2006, 21:55
If you are one who believes the bible, but disregards parts of it, you aren't doing the right thing.
You've said in another post that you disregard (parts of) the OT.
Do you eat shellfish ? Are you pro excecuting witches ? Do you always give money to beggars ?
InsaneApache
03-12-2006, 22:00
could you explain further?
Yes.
The 14C Method
There are three principal isotopes of carbon which occur naturally - C12, C13 (both stable) and C14 (unstable or radioactive). These isotopes are present in the following amounts C12 - 98.89%, C13 - 1.11% and C14 - 0.00000000010%. Thus, one carbon 14 atom exists in nature for every 1,000,000,000,000 C12 atoms in living material. The radiocarbon method is based on the rate of decay of the radioactive or unstable carbon isotope 14 (14C), which is formed in the upper atmosphere through the effect of cosmic ray neutrons upon nitrogen 14. The reaction is:
14N + n => 14C + p
(Where n is a neutron and p is a proton).
The 14C formed is rapidly oxidised to 14CO2 and enters the earth's plant and animal lifeways through photosynthesis and the food chain. The rapidity of the dispersal of C14 into the atmosphere has been demonstrated by measurements of radioactive carbon produced from thermonuclear bomb testing. 14C also enters the Earth's oceans in an atmospheric exchange and as dissolved carbonate (the entire 14C inventory is termed the carbon exchange reservoir (Aitken, 1990)). Plants and animals which utilise carbon in biological foodchains take up 14C during their lifetimes. They exist in equilibrium with the C14 concentration of the atmosphere, that is, the numbers of C14 atoms and non-radioactive carbon atoms stays approximately the same over time. As soon as a plant or animal dies, they cease the metabolic function of carbon uptake; there is no replenishment of radioactive carbon, only decay. There is a useful diagrammatic representation of this process given here
Libby, Anderson and Arnold (1949) were the first to measure the rate of this decay. They found that after 5568 years, half the C14 in the original sample will have decayed and after another 5568 years, half of that remaining material will have decayed, and so on (see figure 1 below). The half-life (t 1/2) is the name given to this value which Libby measured at 5568±30 years. This became known as the Libby half-life. After 10 half-lives, there is a very small amount of radioactive carbon present in a sample. At about 50 - 60 000 years, then, the limit of the technique is reached (beyond this time, other radiometric techniques must be used for dating). By measuring the C14 concentration or residual radioactivity of a sample whose age is not known, it is possible to obtain the countrate or number of decay events per gram of Carbon. By comparing this with modern levels of activity (1890 wood corrected for decay to 1950 AD) and using the measured half-life it becomes possible to calculate a date for the death of the sample.
As 14C decays it emits a weak beta particle (b ), or electron, which possesses an average energy of 160keV. The decay can be shown:
14C => 14N + b
Thus, the 14C decays back to 14N. There is a quantitative relationship between the decay of 14C and the production of a beta particle. The decay is constant but spontaneous. That is, the probability of decay for an atom of 14C in a discrete sample is constant, thereby requiring the application of statistical methods for the analysis of counting data.
It follows from this that any material which is composed of carbon may be dated.Herein lies the true advantage of the radiocarbon method, it is able to be uniformly applied throughout the world. Included below is an impressive list of some of the types of carbonaceous samples that have been commonly radiocarbon dated in the years since the inception of the method:
link (http://www.c14dating.com/int.html)
That's a lot of reading, if you understand it, do you think you could summarize it?
-ZainDustin
doc_bean
03-12-2006, 22:05
what's the OT?
Old Testament
Carbon dating is a way to see how old something is, like dinosaur bones are a few million years old and such, it's based on the radioactive decay of Carbon-14.
I worship myself and the good sides to humanity. I'm against all the large organised religions but that doesnt mean Im against all sorts of spirituality and mysticism... instead I believe that every individual have to find their personal god that fits them.
Old Testament
Carbon dating is a way to see how old something is, like dinosaur bones are a few million years old and such, it's based on the radioactive decay of Carbon-14.
Okay, carbon dating. This can easily be explained from what I said earlier. God didn't create a baby Earth. So, there must be some things he planted on the Earth that began with a certain age, like Adam.
You've said in another post that you disregard (parts of) the OT.
I don't disregard them. I only know that the biblical laws have changed since the crusifixion.
-ZainDustin
InsaneApache
03-12-2006, 22:12
That's a lot of reading, if you understand it, do you think you could summarize it?
-ZainDustin
Yes.
It boils down to this. Whilst organisms are alive they absorb carbon. When they die, the isotope of said carbon start to decompose. There is a measurable rate at which carbon decays in this process. Therefore by observing the amount of decay we can determine when the organism died and how long ago it was.
Alexanderofmacedon
03-12-2006, 22:12
WARNING:
I seem to have remembered hearing some jokes passing between people at my school about 'Chuck Norris' and 'God'. I'm concerned this thread will bring up said jokes and I'm warning you right now...
...I'LL KILL YOU!!!
(Back on topic)
Carbon dating is a hard subject to deny buddy.
I have explained carbon dating with our topic.
Okay, carbon dating. This can easily be explained from what I said earlier. God didn't create a baby Earth. So, there must be some things he planted on the Earth that began with a certain age, like Adam.
InsaneApache
03-12-2006, 22:21
Okay, carbon dating. This can easily be explained from what I said earlier. God didn't create a baby Earth. So, there must be some things he planted on the Earth that began with a certain age, like Adam.
No you didn't. Please refute carbon dating.
Whilst you are about it, pray tell me where it appears in the Bible that dinosaurs were here millions of years before humans? Never mind Adam.
BTW who did Cain marry? By that time (according to the Bible) there were 3 people on Earth. Him and his mum and dad.
Alexanderofmacedon
03-12-2006, 22:23
I got it!
God created a wife for him!:idea2:
:juggle2:
_Martyr_
03-12-2006, 22:24
You have not explained Carbon dating at all... the problem for you to explain is that there are many many examples of human remains which are MUCH older than 6500 years. As in, modern human beings, who when they were alive in whatever primative tribe or grouping they lived were essentially biologically identically to you and I.
No you didn't. Please refute carbon dating.
Whilst you are about it, pray tell me where it appears in the Bible that dinosaurs were here millions of years before humans? Never mind Adam.
BTW who did Cain marry? By that time (according to the Bible) there were 3 people on Earth. Him and his mum and dad.
i'm not going to refute carbon dating. I've already explained how it is related.
the bible doesn't mention dinosaurs, as far as I know.
Cain either married one of his sisters, or God created him a wife. But I"m sure it was one of his sisters. If you would see, interfamily marriages weren't bad back then. And the bible hardly ever mentions women births, only the sons.
-ZainDustin
InsaneApache
03-12-2006, 22:28
So incest is in Gods plan? :inquisitive: :no:
_Martyr_
03-12-2006, 22:29
Well, if you're not going to refute it, we can take it that you cant?
I don't know about the incest thing.
God planted things on the Earth when he created it that were already dead and a fossil. Carbon Dating is probably true, to an extent. If he would have started the world as new, no trees would have been grown, there wouldn't be any Oxygen, and it just wouldn't have worked.
-ZainDustin
mystic brew
03-12-2006, 22:31
atheist. and no... not a religion... just not.
it's a belief position... (in that no, i can't prove the supernatural doesn't exist definitively, so i believe there is no god/s) but that isn't the same as being a religion.
InsaneApache
03-12-2006, 22:32
I don't know about the incest thing.
God planted things on the Earth when he created it that were already dead and a fossil. Carbon Dating is probably true, to an extent. If he would have started the world as new, no trees would have been grown, there wouldn't be any Oxygen, and it just wouldn't have worked.
-ZainDustin
It's either true or false. :wall:
Atheism is lack of religion. Why is that so hard to understand? (talking to everyone)
It is true, but it tells the age beyond the creation, where age was just programmed by God.
InsaneApache
03-12-2006, 22:34
Looks like you lost the arguement then. :laugh4:
mystic brew
03-12-2006, 22:34
I don't know about the incest thing.
Carbon Dating is probably true, to an extent. If he would have started the world as new, no trees would have been grown, there wouldn't be any Oxygen, and it just wouldn't have worked.
except that God can do whatever he wants in your position, yeah? there are no limits... so it would have worked, because god wanted it to...
_Martyr_
03-12-2006, 22:36
But you are missing the point... The bible says God created the first human 6500 years ago. There are MANY examples of human remains that are MUCH older than this date. God couldnt have put HUMANS on earth to get it all nicely ready for the first HUMANS to arive. Plus, the bible gives a detailed day by day account of when he created pretty much everthing, it was done over a week, no? So is the Bible wrong on this matter?
Looks like you lost the arguement then. :laugh4:
Explain yourself.
except that God can do whatever he wants in your position, yeah? there are no limits... so it would have worked, because god wanted it to...
God can do anything. But, I believe he created a world already in motion.
mystic brew
03-12-2006, 22:38
Atheism is lack of religion. Why is that so hard to understand? (talking to everyone)
I'd say it goes beyond a lack... to a positive disbelief.
because in the first post you asked 'whats your religion?' and listed atheism as one of the options.
Then later you say
Atheism is the same thing as Religion-less, which becomes a religion in itself
so i just thought i should make it clear that atheism isn't a religion.
doc_bean
03-12-2006, 22:38
Okay, carbon dating. This can easily be explained from what I said earlier. God didn't create a baby Earth. So, there must be some things he planted on the Earth that began with a certain age, like Adam.
Why would He do that ? :inquisitive:
BTW iirc there are only male children of Adam and Eve mentioned in the Bible: how did they reproduce ? :dizzy2:
I notice I haven't stated my views yet: I'm agnostic: I do like to think there is a reason for all this, but I don't pretend to know it, there might be a Creating Force (or Creator), there might not be. I don't think that if there is a reason that humans are a more important part of the universe than say, dogs or amoeba. There might also be a middle stage between the Creator and humans: Gods, Angels, Demons, Spirits, whatever. I'm not saying it is likely, but always found the huge jump between God/Creator and man a bit strange considering the huge spectrum of existence between man and rock.
I think religion in moderate amounts can be a good thing. It gives people a moral compass and it can help people through tough times. I don't like fundamentalism, the denial of scientific theory based on some ancient book, or people telling me how (and when) i should have sex.
As for religion itself, I'm not a big fan. Basically, I think 'our' God (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) is a sadistic bastard to be frank. While these religions like to blame everything bad on Satan or the weakness of man, it is God who allows these to exist. He cast out Satan from heaven (for disagreeing with him, and he did have a valid point...) but allows him to torture mankind, heck, according to the story of Job he even helps on occasion.
We were cast out from paradise for eating a friggin' apple. God, with all His wisdom about the nature of man (heck, He created us, He should know how we think) thought it would be a good idea to plant a forbidden tree right in the middle of the garden of Eden, baring delicious looking food, and then telling us not to eat it. Right, like that was ever going ro work...
What is the reason of so much suffering on earth ? Draught in Africa: what have all those Ethiopians ever done wrong ? Floods in New Orleans and Asia, earthquakes everywhere, tornados... This isn't always a nice place to live.
But really that's all just whining, I could accept all that, there is a lot of beauty in the world too. What really gets me hating religion is hell. Over half the population in the world will end up there, at least. Not only will all those infidels fry, also all the sinners go there, and there sure is a lot of sin in the 'faithful' world too. Remember that the meek shall inherit the earth (when the kingdom of Heaven arrives), God hates rich people. And the whole western world is rich on a relative scale. If you own a computer you're gonna fry :oops:
And then there's the end of times, when the antichrist comes and there will finally be peace on earth (and some freaky lamb-lion lovin'), God will come along again and bring us 40years of darkness and suffering. Oh yeah, God is love. If you're a masochist.
Sorry if I've offended anyone, I'm not a big fan of this 'God' character in the Bible.
But you are missing the point... The bible says God created the first human 6500 years ago. There are MANY examples of human remains that are MUCH older than this date. God couldnt have put HUMANS on earth to get it all nicely ready for the first HUMANS to arive. Plus, the bible gives a detailed day by day account of when he created pretty much everthing, it was done over a week, no? So is the Bible wrong on this matter?
I understand what you're saying. What kind of early human evidence are you talking about?
Sasaki Kojiro
03-12-2006, 22:39
If god is omnipotent, then by definition he could make everything in the bible true. Or he could make it all false. Which is it? You can't tell!
Therefore...pointless.
InsaneApache
03-12-2006, 22:41
Explain yourself.
This bit.
It is true, but it tells the age beyond the creation
How is this possible. What facts do you have to support this?
No. You refute my hypothysis.
God planted things on the Earth when he created it that were already dead and a fossil.
Where is this in the Bible?
Have you actually considered the idea that you might actually wrong?
As I said. i am a 'recovering' Christian. I was wrong.
_Martyr_
03-12-2006, 22:42
There are a huge amount of human remains that have been found from all around the world that have been dated as older than 6500 years, explain...
I could possibly be wrong. There's always that possibility. I haven't lost this discussion because we are still talking.
I believe I am right because I am a Christian and I'm talking to a bunch of Atheists and Agnostics. You really think I would become a Christian if I didn't know what I was talking about?
_Martyr_
03-12-2006, 22:45
em... Im a Christian...
InsaneApache
03-12-2006, 22:49
I could possibly be wrong. There's always that possibility. I haven't lost this discussion because we are still talking.
I believe I am right because I am a Christian and I'm talking to a bunch of Atheists and Agnostics*. You really think I would become a Christian if I didn't know what I was talking about?
I am quite sure that you have a sincere belief system. You have been told these things. Indoctination. Brainwashing. Call it what you want. There is not a shred of evidence for a 'supreme being'.
*No. You are talking in a games forum.
_Martyr_
03-12-2006, 22:54
Dont take this the wrong way but, were you born into a (I would say Fundamental) Christian family that hold the same beliefs as you? And also, how old are you?
The Universe is evidence of a Supreme Being. This was not chance, someone, or something had to have created it. Or atleast those gases that created the Big Bang.
_Martyr_
03-12-2006, 22:56
Who created God?
Dont take this the wrong way but, were you born into a (I would say Fundamental) Christian family that hold the same beliefs as you? And also, how old are you?
Yes, I was born in a Christian Family, and my age is irrelavant. I am old enough to know how to think for myself and rule out the stupid answers.
_Martyr_
03-12-2006, 22:59
Well, then you didnt really choose to become a Christian as such. You were born into the belief system. The age question was only to judge if you had a huge amount of life experience away from your family's influence which would give you a more balanced view on things.
I understand all that. I am 14. But, I have done more research about this kind of thing then most. Why would I be arguing with people on a Forum if I didn't believe beyond how I was raised? I have looked at all the alternatives, and I CHOSE to be a Christian. I wasn't born that way. Plus, I'd rather be a Christian, and have something to look forward to after death. Instead of an Atheist that has nothing to look forward to but death and silence.
_Martyr_
03-12-2006, 23:07
All I'll say is that lots of things change as you get older. Things I held for certain at 14, such as the lack of a God, have become less clear as Ive got a bit older. And Im only 20. Who knows what Ill believe in another few years with a bit more experience of the world, and the same goes for you.
Possibly. But I am stubborn, and most of the time only I can change my mind. That's why I'm good at debating with people. :thumbsup:
lancelot
03-12-2006, 23:12
I understand all that. I am 14. But, I have done more research about this kind of thing then most. Why would I be arguing with people on a Forum if I didn't believe beyond how I was raised? I have looked at all the alternatives, and I CHOSE to be a Christian. I wasn't born that way. Plus, I'd rather be a Christian, and have something to look forward to after death. Instead of an Atheist that has nothing to look forward to but death and silence.
As you say, you are 14. Can you (at that age) really be sure of anything? There are monks who spend their whole lives pondering such things and yet to come to an answer.
Is the 'something you look forward to' after death just a way of your mind coping with the idea of mortality?
Im not trying to denegrate your faith, Im genuinely interested in the motivations of religious belief but as an atheist I feel the need to explore the religious.
My motivations as a Christian is to please my God, be a good influence on others as to lead them to God, and to go to Heaven when I die. I want to see Jesus with my own two eyes, face to face, in Heaven. And witness God's glory first hand.
InsaneApache
03-13-2006, 00:44
an Atheist that has nothing to look forward to but death and silence.
A common misconception. We atheists have everything to look forward to.
Life.
I don't live my life on some ephemeral promise of a reward on another plane. I live my life to the full. In the certainty that this is it. No second chances, no afterlife, no redemption, just the opportunity to receive and give love with my kith and kin.
Divinus Arma
03-13-2006, 00:56
Ever heard of circular reasoning?
here is an example:
Write on a piece of paper the following:
"This piece of paper is the truth."
Now say the following:
"The piece of paper is the truth because it says so."
That is circular reasoning in the simplest of examples. Sound biblical?
Christians will always deny outside evidence that contradicts with the bible by saying:
"The piece of paper is true because it says so."
Or in other words:
"The bible is true because it says so".
Referring to the bible in a factual argument only destroys the credibility of your argument.
But then again, WTF do any of us really know? Maybe the piece of paper is true.
I prefer to give the Lord alot more credit then that, though. Why would He create the world with "a starting age" when He could create it from scratch and watch it grow? Which is more fun: Raising a child to adulthood and influencing its development, or creating an adult "clone"-type of being that automitaclly is preprogrammed. Existence is the child of God. And He is enjoying raising his creation from infancy.
mystic brew
03-13-2006, 01:10
Plus, I'd rather be a Christian, and have something to look forward to after death. Instead of an Atheist that has nothing to look forward to but death and silence.
whether it's an appealing idea has nothing to do with whether you believe in anything or not. sure, the idea of heaven is quite nice, but that don't make it any more credible to non-believers.
IrishMike
03-13-2006, 02:57
Just look it at this way. If i'm right there is a heaven, then its all good and I played the chances right. If not, i'm not gonna be around to regret it. But all in the end I think its just about living a good life, and that humanity has missed that point. We get way to hung up on what each other believes and all this talk about the bible and missed the living well and good part.
Papewaio
03-13-2006, 03:30
Genes and memes...
Banquo's Ghost
03-13-2006, 10:59
Instead of an Atheist that has nothing to look forward to but death and silence.
For myself, death and silence would be a fine end to a life well-lived. I can't imagine what eternal life would be like except dull. Certainly oblivion is preferable to eternity in the company of the 'Elect' that I have met. ~:wacko:
Unless, of course, there was to be endless repetition of Allegri's Miserere, sung in the Sistine Chapel or Merton College - perhaps the piece of music that I would accept as the voice of God. I'd be willing to bet that wouldn't be your idea of heaven though! :eyebrows:
Zain, since you like to be well-read and informed, try reading 'The Myth of Sisyphus' by Albert Camus for one philosophical viewpoint on why atheism can be very fulfilling. :book:
But you are missing the point... The bible says God created the first human 6500 years ago. There are MANY examples of human remains that are MUCH older than this date. God couldnt have put HUMANS on earth to get it all nicely ready for the first HUMANS to arive. Plus, the bible gives a detailed day by day account of when he created pretty much everthing, it was done over a week, no? So is the Bible wrong on this matter?
Correction - the bible states no such thing - Man has interpated the Old Testiment to mean 6500 years.
Ja'chyra
03-13-2006, 16:40
Mucho funnyness :laugh4:
Ok, I believe there could be a God but no way does he bear much relation to what any religion says he does. Let's face it, they can't all be right.
Zain
If you think you've done more research then most people then you haven't been on these forums for very long. I would say that at 14 it's easy to feel that you know everything, but give yourslef 5 years and you won't be so definite, trust me I'm a doctor, well I'm not really but Rory is :laugh4:
Cronos Impera
03-13-2006, 16:54
Paganism is different than Heathenism.
Paganism means you worship the gods of the old pantheon ( Dacian, Geraman etc.) while Heathenism is a represented by the Wicca comunities and other witchcraft crap.
I'm a pagan. I worship Zalmoxis and charge with a smile into everything, including my bathroom.
Anyway, I don't think there is a Supreme Creator. First there was chaos, then Gaia, Tartarus and Erebus. Then Cronos, Thetis, Oceanus, Iapetus, Hyperion and all the titans. After that there ware the Olympian Gods.
[B]The Christian God may just be Zeus' unborn child[B]
The Bible imports many of It's episodes from the sumerians, pheonicians and mostly from the Egyptians and thus can't be read mot-a-mot( word-by-word).
The Flood first appears on the Tartaria tablets, then later in The Epic of Gilgamesh and Greek Mythology. Even the aztecs had a flood.
Immortality of the soul and rebirth ( again nothing new, Zalmoxis preached to the dacians about immortality long before Jesus was born).
doc_bean
03-13-2006, 17:28
The Flood first appears on the Tartaria tablets, then later in The Epic of Gilgamesh and Greek Mythology. Even the aztecs had a flood..
Seeing as how many different religions (and possibly other ancient texts) mention it, it is likely that a great flood did actually happen. Some people claim the Sphinx shows marks caused by the flood, but this isn't really accepted in the Egyptology community afaik.
I always loved how one of my old teachers explained Genesis: the Jews were slaves of the Babylonians, and as many oppressed people, stated losing touch with their own culture. To show the power of the One true God the priests told the people of how God created the universe. Now the babylonians also had a creation myth of course: it was a complicated story about slaying eachother and making worlds from the bones of the fallen. Jehova just had to say a word to create the universe.
So really, all that Genesis is, is a story about how my God can beat up your God :laugh4:
Evil_Maniac From Mars
03-13-2006, 17:41
Christianity. :2thumbsup:
From the other thread:
Absolutely... you are taking the 'hard' agnostic position here. which is to say that you believe that god can't be proved to exist one way or t'other.
No, I have no belief about religion. By logic, it is impossible to prove that God doesn`t exist. I don`t know if it is possible to prove that he exist; I am not sure about that.
But no scientific evidence has yet been shown to me, so my stance is neutral.
Avicenna
03-13-2006, 20:49
According to the bible God is outside of time, so there is no way for us to be able to understand it.
-ZainDustin
We can alter our perception of time as well. But how did he come into being in the first place? WHERE would he be if there was absolutely nowhere for him to even be in?
Even if he is real, why does he want people to praise him? Is he some kind of egoistic immature character who absolutely loves being in the centre of attention? He is also a totalitarian dictator: think, talk and act like he wants, or forever burn in hell. Wow, he sounds like Hitler or Stalin. People must suffer because Christ suffered: if he is that selfish, how is he in any way perfect? And why did we have to suffer before Jesus Christ came? My major point of annoyance: why must you believe in him to enter heaven? People have valid reasons for doubting in his existence. It's not as if he's shown himself to us yet. Also, how is this fair for say, Gandhi? He is virtuous and helps people at his own cost, risking his life, yet he does not believe in God. Does this mean that he went to hell for this "sin"?
mystic brew
03-13-2006, 22:14
From the other thread:
No, I have no belief about religion. By logic, it is impossible to prove that God doesn`t exist. I don`t know if it is possible to prove that he exist; I am not sure about that.
But no scientific evidence has yet been shown to me, so my stance is neutral.
ok, soft agnostic position then! sorry, i thought your first post was saying that you believed it was impossible to prove one way or the other, and so you refused to take a position on principle.
But how did he come into being in the first place? WHERE would he be if there was absolutely nowhere for him to even be in?
That's where human comprehension pretty much ends. That's one thing I can't answer. He's God, so he was always there. And, where he resides? on his alter in Heaven.
Even if he is real, why does he want people to praise him? Is he some kind of egoistic immature character who absolutely loves being in the centre of attention? He is also a totalitarian dictator: think, talk and act like he wants, or forever burn in hell. Wow, he sounds like Hitler or Stalin.
All he wants you to accept that Jesus is his son, and to believe in him, and you will go to Heaven. Why do people think that's such a big deal? To go to eternal happiness, all you have to do is ask Jesus into your heart, or you Will burn in Hell. Just a quick decision can save you from eternal pain. He wants you to do this, because he believes that if you don't do this SMALL thing, you don't deserve to go to Heaven, but he loves you, and wants you there. It's your decision on whether you join him in Heaven or not. I know I'll be there with him.
Also, how is this fair for say, Gahndhi? He is virtuous and helps people at his own cost, risking his life, yet he does not believe in God. Does this mean that he went to hell for this "sin"?
If Ghandi didn't believe in God, and Jesus, yes he is in Heaven, but not because of his sin. Only because he didn't accept Jesus into his heart, but no doubt he was a good man.
People must suffer because Christ suffered: if he is that selfish, how is he in any way perfect?
You have that all wrong. Whenever Jesus was put on the cross, all burden of sin, past, present, and future was put on him, so You don't have to be "crusified" for you sin. He was killed, so you don't have to be put through that. All you have to do is accept him, and ask forgiveness for you sin. That's it.
-ZainDustin
Divinus Arma
03-14-2006, 06:26
Whenever Jesus was put on the cross, all burden of sin, past, present, and future was put on him, so You don't have to be "crusified" for you sin. He was killed, so you don't have to be put through that. All you have to do is accept him, and ask forgiveness for you sin. That's it.
First of all, original sin itself is all wrong. Before adam and eve ate "the apple" they did not know the difference between good and evil. Therefore, they did not know it was evil to eat the apple. So how can God punish us for something we did not know was wrong? The "expulsion from eden" was our spiritual awakening and transformation into thinking, choosing human beings. It fits in perfectly with evolution.
Hence, no need for a messiah.
But let's assume for fun that original sin is real. How does the physical death of Jesus cancel out my "spiritual death"? So he died on the cross. Doesn't seem like a big deal to me. Death is an eventuallity, whether you are murdered or die peacefully. Now if Jesus went to hell for all eternity, that would be a different story. THAT would be a sacrifice.
Finally, assuming that (a) original sin is real and (b) Jesus really was God and that his physical death actually menat something, then why the heck do I need to believe it? If he made the sacrifice, then "believing" in it is pointless.
Jesus is the boogey man waiting to kill you in the closet or under the bed. He's Santa Claus in the North Pole. Superman flying throught the sky.
Worship Jesus and you are worshipping a man in the place of our one God. Christianity is pagan. The father, the son, the holy ghost = 3 gods, not one.
Granted, Christianity has done alot of good in this world, but it has also done just as much evil. And all in worship of a human being.
The teachings of Jesus show us a different path. Jesus taught us to be closer to God by simplifying everything. He told as that there are two commandments (love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul and mind, and love your neighbor as yourself.)
The beauty of Jesus was his ability to get people past all the BS bureaucracy and rules that the saducees and pharisees had attached to our worship of the Lord. His disciples, especially Paul, were brilliant in that they brought the Lord to those outside of Judaism. But they were not trying to promote Jesus as God, they were trying to bring the teachings of Jesus to a wider audience.
The sooner that we put the destructive myths of Original Sin and Jesus-as-God into the religious history books, the better off the world will be. One day, the world will all worship the one true God and this distraction from our Lord will be put to a final rest.
Oh- and one more thing. Adam is hebrew for mankind. The Torah is the old testament and was first written in hebrew. So there is no "Adam" as a single person. So "mankind" "ate" "the apple". It also says nothing about a rib bone.
Literal translation of Genesis 1:27 from Hebrew to English-
And created | God | the mankind | in His image, | In the image of | God | He created | him; | male | and female | He created | them
And there is a whole lot more where that came from.
Strike For The South
03-14-2006, 08:46
First of all, original sin itself is all wrong. Before adam and eve ate "the apple" they did not know the difference between good and evil. Therefore, they did not know it was evil to eat the apple. So how can God punish us for something we did not know was wrong? The "expulsion from eden" was our spiritual awakening and transformation into thinking, choosing human beings. It fits in perfectly with evolution.
This is not true. As a baptist I dont belive in orginnal sin anyway but saying this is a fallacy.God TOLD them not to eat the apple it says so right there in the book and yet there were led into temtation like all of us have been.
InsaneApache
03-14-2006, 10:53
If Ghandi didn't believe in God, and Jesus, yes he is in Heaven, but not because of his sin. Only because he didn't accept Jesus into his heart, but no doubt he was a good man.
Now you're making it up as you go along.
The Bible says that nobody is good enough to get into heaven. Each one of us has broken God's commandments--not one person is excepted. You have personally lied and committed other sins.
For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God. (Romans 3:23)
[L]et God be true, but every man a liar...( Romans 3:4)
I don't care how much "good" stuff you do, you still can't go to heaven. You are dead in tresspasses and sins. Your good deeds do not commend you to God in any way. You've ignored Him chosing to live life the way YOU see fit.
But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away. (Isaiah 64:6)
So Gandhi doesn't get the keys then.
All he wants you to accept that Jesus is his son, and to believe in him, and you will go to Heaven. Why do people think that's such a big deal? To go to eternal happiness, all you have to do is ask Jesus into your heart, or you Will burn in Hell. Just a quick decision can save you from eternal pain. He wants you to do this, because he believes that if you don't do this SMALL thing, you don't deserve to go to Heaven, but he loves you, and wants you there. It's your decision on whether you join him in Heaven or not. I know I'll be there with him.
Little thing called evidence. If we followed the route of just believing, then there would be no need for courts, as evidence would be superfluous.
I'd rather Yahweh did'n't love me, if I have to kneel before him in subservience. That's not what I call love.
Reenk Roink
03-14-2006, 12:50
Now you're making it up as you go along.
I think ZainDustin meant to say hell...could be wrong, but could be right...
ok, soft agnostic position then!
Probably correct.
I don`t have any believes when it comes to religion, so agnosticism just doesn`t entirely fit my view. :thinking:
If Ghandi didn't believe in God, and Jesus, yes he is in Heaven, but not because of his sin. Only because he didn't accept Jesus into his heart, but no doubt he was a good man.
Now you're making it up as you go along.
I'm SO sorry. That was a huge typo. I'm sorry, I had been typing a whole lot that day, and I was tired from working some with my dad. It should read like this...
If Ghandi didn't believe in God, and Jesus, yes he is in Hell, but not because of his sin. Only because he didn't accept Jesus into his heart, but no doubt he was a good man.
Sorry about that.
This is not true. As a baptist I dont belive in orginnal sin anyway but saying this is a fallacy.God TOLD them not to eat the apple it says so right there in the book and yet there were led into temtation like all of us have been.
That is ABSOLUTELY correct Strike for the South. You are wrong Divinus Arma
InsaneApache
03-14-2006, 14:45
So let me get this right.
Gandhi didn't get into Heaven because he didn't believe in your God. However, someone for instance, like Hitler, a Roman Catholic who did believe, was accepted?
:dizzy2:
Strike For The South
03-14-2006, 15:59
So let me get this right.
Gandhi didn't get into Heaven because he didn't believe in your God. However, someone for instance, like Hitler, a Roman Catholic who did believe, was accepted?
:dizzy2:
Its not my God its THE GOD :mellow:and Hitler like any other christian could ask for forgiveness. While Ghandi was a non beliver so Im putting my money on Hitler.
Byzantine Mercenary
03-14-2006, 16:07
So let me get this right.
Gandhi didn't get into Heaven because he didn't believe in your God. However, someone for instance, like Hitler, a Roman Catholic who did believe, was accepted?
:dizzy2:
ive always gone with the principle that as long as you do good in the name of god, whatever that god may be called you will be in heaven, I believe Hitler would not have done what he did if he truly followed Jesus's teachings i can't tell you whether or not he would be forgiven i (like anyone else) haven't the authority, (by a longshot).
Mongoose
03-14-2006, 16:43
That is ABSOLUTELY correct Strike for the South. You are wrong Divinus Arma
But they didn't know that disobeying God was evil.
Strike For The South
03-14-2006, 19:33
But they didn't know that disobeying God was evil.
Yes they did GOD told them not to. So they werent suppose to but were led into temptation
Reenk Roink
03-14-2006, 21:06
Sorry about that.
Yay! I was right... :smiley:
So let me get this right.
Gandhi didn't get into Heaven because he didn't believe in your God. However, someone for instance, like Hitler, a Roman Catholic who did believe, was accepted?
:dizzy2:
Probably not, Hitler commited suicide, thus closing all doors for repentance, and ending his very sinful life with yet another grave sin...
InsaneApache
03-14-2006, 22:05
But if you repent, then the lord will embrace you. After all the Lord loves no-one like a reformed sinner.
Look it says so.
As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die... (Ezekiel 33:11)
The Lord is...not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. (II Peter 3:9)
..the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin. (I John 1:7)
It's a very strange thing. You can live an utterly horrible life, sinning one after the other, but at the very end of your life, you could realize what you did was wrong, become a Christian, ask to be forgiven, and you will go to Heaven. But on the contrary, a utmost perfect person, who did everything good, and nothing bad, but wasn't a Christian would go to Hell. It's sad, in some cases.
-ZainDustin
It's a very strange thing. You can live an utterly horrible life, sinning one after the other, but at the very end of your life, you could realize what you did was wrong, become a Christian, ask to be forgiven, and you will go to Heaven. But on the contrary, a utmost perfect person, who did everything good, and nothing bad, but wasn't a Christian would go to Hell. It's sad, in some cases.
-ZainDustin
That sounds logical. Listen to yourself man. :no:
That sounds logical. Listen to yourself man. :no:
I know, it doesn't sound good, but that's how it works, occording to the bible.
It all boils down to this, you don't make it into Heaven by works, but by Faith.
You MUST be a Christian to enter Heaven.
-ZainDustin
Strike For The South
03-14-2006, 23:08
That sounds logical. Listen to yourself man. :no:
Its not that diffucult just go to a church
Its not that diffucult just go to a church
Amen!
InsaneApache
03-14-2006, 23:12
OK.
So tell me. If you live a life of utter depravity and maim, cripple, rape, murder, pederast, sodomize, beat, burn, pillage, ravage, steal, commit adultery, rob, blaspheme, lie, and take the Lords name in vain but you get the chance to repent, you get the keys?
On the other hand. If you help, say, the infirm, the poor, the troubled, the meek, the crippled, the ill, the starving, the elderly, the children and people in desperate need, just out of the goodness of your heart, but you reject the teachings of Jesus, then you burn in eternity?
Papewaio
03-14-2006, 23:12
I know, it doesn't sound good, but that's how it works, occording to the bible.
It all boils down to this, you don't make it into Heaven by works, but by Faith.
You MUST be a Christian to enter Heaven.
-ZainDustin
Then how do you explain what happens to the roots of the tree?
Strike For The South
03-14-2006, 23:14
OK.
So tell me. If you live a life of utter depravity and maim, cripple, rape, murder, pederast, sodomize, beat, burn, pillage, ravage, steal, commit adultery, rob, blaspheme, lie, and take the Lords name in vain but you get the chance to repent, you get the keys?
On the other hand. If you help, say, the infirm, the poor, the troubled, the meek, the crippled, the ill, the starving, the elderly, the children and people in desperate need, just out of the goodness of your heart, but you reject the teachings of Jesus, then you burn in eternity?
Yes :blank2:
OK.
So tell me. If you live a life of utter depravity and maim, cripple, rape, murder, pederast, sodomize, beat, burn, pillage, ravage, steal, commit adultery, rob, blaspheme, lie, and take the Lords name in vain but you get the chance to repent, you get the keys?
On the other hand. If you help, say, the infirm, the poor, the troubled, the meek, the crippled, the ill, the starving, the elderly, the children and people in desperate need, just out of the goodness of your heart, but you reject the teachings of Jesus, then you burn in eternity?
Yes.
InsaneApache
03-14-2006, 23:31
And you think this is a good thing?
It doesn't matter what I think. It's God's will.
-ZainDustin
InsaneApache
03-14-2006, 23:37
But you have a brain. Of course you can think. What is your opinion on this?
My opinion is I think that's good. My reasoning is, why should God let people into his sanctuary if they don't even believe in him?
Papewaio
03-14-2006, 23:48
You know he gave you freewill right?
And that he places a very high premium on love too...
So does it make sense that a loving God will reject people who show love to his children but haven't been exposed to him?
I don't know about the people who weren't exposed to his word. But these days, everyone has been exposed to his word some time or another, accept the extremely isolated Africans or something. I think that's where the responsibility of the Believers comes in.
I don't know what to say about the people who were never exposed to the word.
-ZainDustin
InsaneApache
03-14-2006, 23:53
My opinion is I think that's good. My reasoning is, why should God let people into his sanctuary if they don't even believe in him?
Perhaps because they ellieviate suffering. Tend to the sick. Feed the poor. Protect the meek. Give help to all men whenever they are in distress.
Not much of a compassionate 'being' this God.
people keep saying that, but you don't get into Heaven by works, but by FAITH. a simple decision gets you into Heaven, that's it.
-ZainDustin
Strike For The South
03-14-2006, 23:59
people who dont know get the same pass as little children who dont understand the sheer power of the comminet. They go becuase they had no chance BUT if you are openly refuting Gods word :thumbsdown:
Papewaio
03-15-2006, 00:02
And the roots of the tree? What happens to them?
Strike For The South
03-15-2006, 00:04
And the roots of the tree? What happens to them?
Im sorry I dont understand.
I geuss I don't understand the point of your question.
Marcellus
03-15-2006, 00:28
It's a very strange thing. You can live an utterly horrible life, sinning one after the other, but at the very end of your life, you could realize what you did was wrong, become a Christian, ask to be forgiven, and you will go to Heaven. But on the contrary, a utmost perfect person, who did everything good, and nothing bad, but wasn't a Christian would go to Hell. It's sad, in some cases.
-ZainDustin
It's not sad, it defies logic. Even IF this God does exist, why would you worship a being that operates such a ridiculous salvation policy, arbitrarily throwing good people into hell just because they believed in a slightly different God, but allowing bad people to spend all eternity in heaven simply because moments before their death they said 'I believe in you God, will you forgive me?'. Damning anyone for all eternity is bad enough.
Plus, can anyone tell me why I should actually believe anything the Bible says?
Strike For The South
03-15-2006, 00:32
It's not sad, it defies logic. Even IF this God does exist, why would you worship a being that operates such a ridiculous salvation policy, arbitrarily throwing good people into hell just because they believed in a slightly different God, but allowing bad people to spend all eternity in heaven simply because moments before their death they said 'I believe in you God, will you forgive me?'. Damning anyone for all eternity is bad enough.
Plus, can anyone tell me why I should actually believe anything the Bible says?
For the last time you dont get in by doing good deeds you do it by having faith in the one true GOD.
Marcellus
03-15-2006, 00:38
For the last time you dont get in by doing good deeds you do it by having faith in the one true GOD.
I understand that, I'm just saying that it seems like a rather ridiculous way of deciding who goes to heaven and who spends all eternity in hell (which by the way seems like a terribly cruel punishment for a loving God to do).
Also, why shouldn't someone who has faith in what they believe to be a one true God go to heaven? They had exactly the same faith, just they were bought up in a society that tends to believe in a different God.
Reenk Roink
03-15-2006, 01:09
It's not sad, it defies logic. Even IF this God does exist, why would you worship a being that operates such a ridiculous salvation policy, arbitrarily throwing good people into hell just because they believed in a slightly different God, but allowing bad people to spend all eternity in heaven simply because moments before their death they said 'I believe in you God, will you forgive me?'. Damning anyone for all eternity is bad enough.
Doesn't defy logic at all. Obviously the biblical (one and true...don't kill me STFS) God wants his creation to believe and worship Him. Good and Bad are decided by God, and obviously, the bad of the bad is to not have faith. It's the ultimate sin, a per se. Therefore, if one is doing good deeds, but does not have faith, all his good deeds are in vain, because he did not do them for God, but for different reasons, perhaps selfish motives, or a philosophical sense of altruism...
Marcellus
03-15-2006, 01:20
But why would you worship a God who operates such a cruel policy? Surely he should be defied, not pandered to?
It strikes me that bending the knee to such a divine being in order to secure your own salvation is no different to pandering to a despotic regime to ensure you are not the next one to go.
InsaneApache
03-15-2006, 01:31
Why would anyone even contemplate such an entity, never mind worship one?
A being that rewards vile practises in His name is an abomination, ney an anathema to me.
A being that despises kindness, helpfulness, compassion, humanity, thoughtfulness, mercy, etc....etc....
Thankyou, you have convinced me that all organised religion is a menace to mankind.
Enjoy your afterlife. :no:
Reenk Roink
03-15-2006, 01:43
But why would you worship a God who operates such a cruel policy? Surely he should be defied, not pandered to?
Doesn't personally seem so "cruel" to me, more like, punish the wicked (and arrogant who are unfaithful) and reward the righteous people with faith (and those who repent I guess) but that question would be better served towards ZainDustin or STFS...
It strikes me that bending the knee to such a divine being in order to secure your own salvation is no different to pandering to a despotic regime to ensure you are not the next one to go.
Except that, in the eyes of the faithful, this divine being is the ultimate goal of life, can do no wrong or injustice, will punish the wicked (unfaithfulness counts) while rewarding the righteous, and is full of mercy to the wicked who turn in sincere repentance while they are in this "test". "Bending the knee" to such a being is the obligation that the creation owes to his creator anyway, and it is just an added benefit that the creator will be merciful enough to give such a person everlasting bliss.
But I tire of playing theologian now...~;)
EDIT: I in turn have a question for you ZainDustin, what do you personally believe (or what is your church's position) on what happens to people who do not recieve the message of God?
Divinus Arma
03-15-2006, 01:59
SFTS and ZD, consider this:
The tree was the tree of knowledge of Good and Evil, is that correct?
And God said, do not eat of it, correct?
And it is evil to disobey God, correct?
And before they ate, they were innocent of good and evil, correct?
Therefore, they did not know that it was evil to disobey God, because they had not yet eaten the apple.
I in turn have a question for you ZainDustin, what do you personally believe (or what is your church's position) on what happens to people who do not recieve the message of God?
I believe that the people who never hear the word are not held accounted for the information they never heard.
SFTS and ZD, consider this:
The tree was the tree of knowledge of Good and Evil, is that correct?
And God said, do not eat of it, correct?
And it is evil to disobey God, correct?
And before they ate, they were innocent of good and evil, correct?
Therefore, they did not know that it was evil to disobey God, because they had not yet eaten the apple.
Correct
Correct
Correct
Correct
Incorrect. God told them not to eat the fruit, so in knowing that, they knew it was a sin for Adam or Eve to eat it, because it was the opposite of what God said.
-ZainDustin
Papewaio
03-15-2006, 02:31
Doesn't defy logic at all. Obviously the biblical (one and true...don't kill me STFS) God wants his creation to believe and worship Him. Good and Bad are decided by God, and obviously, the bad of the bad is to not have faith. It's the ultimate sin, a per se. Therefore, if one is doing good deeds, but does not have faith, all his good deeds are in vain, because he did not do them for God, but for different reasons, perhaps selfish motives, or a philosophical sense of altruism...
The bible states that faith, belief and love are all important, but the most important is love.
Therefore it seems stupid to make faith the primary criteria of judgement when Jesus was about love and love is stated as the most important of the 3.
Divinus Arma
03-15-2006, 02:38
I believe that the people who never hear the word are not held accounted for the information they never heard.
God told them not to eat the fruit, so in knowing that, they knew it was a sin for Adam or Eve to eat it, because it was the opposite of what God said.
OH MY LAWD! *Do you see what I see* /end song
This is a TOTAL contradiction!!!!!!
You say that people are not held accountable for information they never heard. Adam and Eve never knew the difference between good and evil, so how could they be held accountable?
LISTEN: Just as you said people must first hear the gospel, so too should adam and eve have learnt the difference between good and evil.
Yes, God told them. But they did not yet know that it was evil to disboey him. How did they know it was evil to eat the apple if they did not know the difference between good and evil?
Why would anyone even contemplate such an entity, never mind worship one?
YOU aren't listening to a thing we've been saying. I worship my God because he is a loving God. He loves EVERYONE. He DOES NOT send anyone to Hell. They send THEMSELVES by not accepting him into his heart. Tell me, if you created these beings that could think for themselves, and then you created these two places for them to go when they die, wouldn't you want things that LOVE you to be in your sanctuary? Or should you just let all the un-believers to go into your house, your sanctuary, without even believing in you?
Hell is punishment for ignoring his knock on your heart's door for all your life.
A being that rewards vile practises in His name is an abomination, ney an anathema to me.
I may not know what "ney an anathema" means, but I can imagine. The same goes here, he does not "award vile practises in His name" because a "vile practice" is considered a sin, in which he WILL NOT look upon. One is not a Christian unless he/she asks for forgiveness from their sins when they get saved.
A being that despises kindness, helpfulness, compassion, humanity, thoughtfulness, mercy, etc....etc....
YOU ARE SO IGNORANT!! He does NOT despise these acts, he loves them. But if they are not done in HIS name, who are they for? The only other Supernatural being other than him, Satan.
Thankyou, you have convinced me that all organised religion is a menace to mankind.
I have convinced you of this? Tell me how? For I know I have told you that God loves you and he wants a relationship with you. He is willing to forgive you for all sins you have committed, he has for me.
Enjoy your afterlife.
I will enjoy it, because I WILL be in Heaven, but from what I've heard, if you keep going down the same track, you will be in Hell for always and eternity.
Enjoy YOUR afterlife.
-ZainDustin
OH MY LAWD! *Do you see what I see* /end song
This is a TOTAL contradiction!!!!!!
You say that people are not held accountable for information they never heard. Adam and Eve never knew the difference between good and evil, so how could they be held accountable?
LISTEN: Just as you said people must first hear the gospel, so too should adam and eve have learnt the difference between good and evil.
Yes, God told them. But they did not yet know that it was evil to disboey him. How did they know it was evil to eat the apple if they did not know the difference between good and evil?
They didn't. But it was enough that God HIMSELF told them NOT to. Even if they didn't know why.
Divinus Arma
03-15-2006, 02:51
They didn't. But it was enough that God HIMSELF told them NOT to. Even if they didn't know why.[/QUOTE]
Excellent!
So, just to refresh our memory
[QUOTE=ZainDustin]I believe that the people who never hear the word are not held accounted for the information they never heard.
By your very own logic, if Adam and Eve did not understand, or know why, and were innocent and ignorant- then they should not be held accountable.
Why would God hold adam and eve accountable for something they did not have an understanding of?
It was a test. And plus, the people who never hear the word, don't know anything about it. Adam and Eve KNEW that God said NOT to. So, disobeying him either way, was a sin.
Papewaio
03-15-2006, 02:56
Except they did not understand the consequences of their actions... not until after they had the ability to understand... which coincidentally that understanding was contained within the fruit of knowledge... nice catch 22.
BTW Roots of the tree... Jew, Branches ... Christian.
Do Jews go to hell even though they are the roots of the faith, love god and believe in Him?
Except they did not understand the consequences of their actions... not until after they had the ability to understand... which coincidentally that understanding was contained within the fruit of knowledge... nice catch 22.
BTW Roots of the tree... Jew, Branches ... Christian.
Do Jews go to hell even though they are the roots of the faith, love god and believe in Him?
God told Adam and Eve that they would surely die if they ate the fruit, so they knew the consequence, possibly not understand it though.
Anyone who does not accept Jesus as God's son goes to Hell.
Divinus Arma
03-15-2006, 03:15
God told Adam and Eve that they would surely die if they ate the fruit, so they knew the consequence, possibly not understand it though.
How would they know the consequences? Is a dog not innocent of good and evil? Is a child not innocent? Is a not an ape not innocent?
They were as children, and as animals. I have no doubt that an event occurred that transformed the human mind. I would not say it was instantaneous.
I disgaree with the interpretation of that event. I think it was a good thing that God purposely intended and that the bible actually supports this with the bible's own statments. The torah, being one of the odelst maintained documents in human history, is actually nothing more than an interpreted history book. It is the story of man as has been passed on through verbal history until it was finally written down. We see the early history of humanity through the timid and confused minds of early humans.
Anyone who does not accept Jesus as God's son goes to Hell.
This concept is one of the most evil in the entire history of the earth.
Strike For The South
03-15-2006, 03:19
They didn't. But it was enough that God HIMSELF told them NOT to. Even if they didn't know why.
Excellent!
So, just to refresh our memory
By your very own logic, if Adam and Eve did not understand, or know why, and were innocent and ignorant- then they should not be held accountable.
Why would God hold adam and eve accountable for something they did not have an understanding of?
They didnt understand why they shouldnt eat the apple but they knew God told them not to. Its like your parents telling you not to touch the stove you may not understand but you dont becuase your pareants told you not to.
@PAPE Jews are still waiting for the messiah but he already came and they rejected him. So they go :thumbsdown:
This concept is one of the most evil in the entire history of the earth.
Is it now? Does it not make sense? Why would God let people that don't even believe in him into his sanctuary? Those who do not believe in him do not deserve it, although God still loves them.
Divinus Arma
03-15-2006, 03:25
Is it now? Does it not make sense? Why would God let people that don't even believe in him into his sanctuary? Those who do not believe in him do not deserve it, although God still loves them.
It has nothing to do with God.
Anyone who does not accept Jesus as God's son goes to Hell.
Jesus is the problem.
There is really something wrong with the whole idea of "worship this human as God or you will spend hell in eternity". The whole idea distracts from the one true God.
And again, Christainity is counter to human survival. I love my children so much that I would prefer not to have them rather than take a .00000000001% chance that they would go to hell. It just isn't worth the risk, so therefore humanity would die out of its own accord.
That would only happen if children wasn't looked at as innocent. Did you know that if a child dies, whether or not they were raised in a Christian family, they will go to Heaven? They are safe, as long as they don't know to make the decision.
Yes, Jesus was a human, but he was God as well. He was the Messiah, Son of God, born through a virgin chosen by God.
Reenk Roink
03-15-2006, 03:37
Phew, another Backroom thread like this...
Good thing I played a bit with it and :flybye: before it got to this...
Lol, nice Reenk Roink. I love a good debate. But it's not so fun like this, when the people I'm talking to don't even listen to a word I say, only selective hearing.
-ZainDustin
Papewaio
03-15-2006, 03:46
@PAPE Jews are still waiting for the messiah but he already came and they rejected him. So they go :thumbsdown:
Not according to Paul...
¿So? Jews still believe the Messiah is coming, so they don't believe in Jesus, so they go :thumbsdown:
Divinus Arma
03-15-2006, 03:47
That would only happen if children wasn't looked at as innocent. Did you know that if a child dies, whether or not they were raised in a Christian family, they will go to Heaven? They are safe, as long as they don't know to make the decision.
But they will not be children forever. And I love the idea of my adult children so much that I would rather not have them than risk them going to hell. Through my love of the, I will spare them this short life and thus spare them the possibility of going to hell.
Yes, Jesus was a human, but he was God as well.
And if you are wrong then you have spent your entire life worshiping a human being instead of God. The difference between our views is that I do not think God will fault you for your ignorance.
Christianity is a Pagan religion, my friend. You worship a "father God", a "Son God", a "Holy ghost type of God-being". AND you also recognize the existence of an EVIL God- Satan. Catholicism, the original christianity, is even more pagan. Catholics recognize all sorts of heavenly supernatural creatures: Saints, demons, angles, etc.
So are you truly monotheistic? The Greeks had a "father God" too, as well as all kinds of minor lower Gods inferior to the "father God". In fact, every pagan religion shares this similarity. "Odin All-father", God of the vikings. "Brahman" is the hindu father-type God.
I am monotheistic. God is God. Jesus is his son. Through Jesus, we can talk to God, and get saved from our sins, and from Hell. If you are so afraid your children won't accept Jesus as God's son, and that God exists, teach them this, so they will go to Heaven. If you don't, you will go to Hell as well. So, if you believe that this decision changes your course of destiny, why not believe it? I'm not wrong, Jesus is God's son, God is God. I can feel this by the change in my life, and miracles I have seen that only God could have done.
-ZainDustin
Papewaio
03-15-2006, 03:55
Read Romans 10 and 11:
11 As the Scripture says, "Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame."[e] 12For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, 13for, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."
25 I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in. 26 And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written:
"The deliverer will come from Zion;
he will turn godlessness away from Jacob.
27 And this is my covenant with them
when I take away their sins."
I think your return phrase is:
"You sunk my battleship"
One thing that scripture does not mention is whether the people believe in Jesus or not. If you don't believe in Jesus, you will not be saved.
I don't know how many times I'm going to have to say that.
-ZainDustin
Divinus Arma
03-15-2006, 04:05
I am monotheistic. God is God. Jesus is his son. Through Jesus, we can talk to God, and get saved from our sins, and from Hell. If you are so afraid your children won't accept Jesus as God's son, and that God exists, teach them this, so they will go to Heaven. If you don't, you will go to Hell as well. So, if you believe that this decision changes your course of destiny, why not believe it? I'm not wrong, Jesus is God's son, God is God. I can feel this by the change in my life, and miracles I have seen that only God could have done.
Miracles, eh?
About three years ago, I was doing my routine police work during a particularly rainy season in Southern Cali. The outside lane of a busy highway had flooded and mud was falling from the nearby cliff into that lane. I set up my patrol car thirty or fourty feet back and was setting up a cone pattern to direct cars around the danger. I was kind of tired and not really paying attention.
I started walking across the highway, dropping one cone at a time. Well, when I got to the inside lane, I stopped. It was an awkard stop, as if forced. The funny thing is that I had no intention of stopping. I'm a pragmatic and logical fellow, but right at that very second when I was "forced" to stop, a 1-ton bread truck flew by at about 50 mph and not six inches from the tip of my nose. I did not see it coming. I had no wanring. I had no reason to stop. But I did, and because I stopped, I survived.
Because of this, I yield that I do not know everything. I admit that anything is possible and that anyone who claims to know the truth is an arrogant fool. I had always "believed" in God because it is far more logical to believe in God than not to. But I had never believed in "miracles" and considered them to be the perception of fools.
So I say that Christianity and miralces are a possibility. But then so is Hinduism, Islam, and anything else for that matter. It is also possible that my tiny brain, being far more powerful than we realize, detected that truck subconsciously and gave me an unnatural reflexive halt to ensure survival.
My lesson from that experience is that anything is possible and certainty in religion is the mindset of fools. In religion, we can only be certain of uncertainty.
Well, I am happy your life was saved. I am sorry you think of me as a fool, because I know that Jesus is God's son, and that God is the creator of everything, but I know that, without a doubt.
-ZainDustin
Papewaio
03-15-2006, 04:32
One thing that scripture does not mention is whether the people believe in Jesus or not. If you don't believe in Jesus, you will not be saved.
I don't know how many times I'm going to have to say that.
-ZainDustin
Doesn't matter how many times you repeat a wrong answer it is still wrong.
Read Romans 10 and 11 and come back to the debate after that. :book:
Alright then, I'll take some time off and read this, and get back to you.
-ZainDustin
Papewaio, I looked at that scripture, and have come to some conclusions. In Romans 10, when it refers to "Lord" it is referring to Jesus Christ, the Messiah. Also, in Romans 11, it is talking about Jesus, the Messiah, coming to Earth and teaching the word of God, so Israel might be saved.
Read this, it's pretty commonly used...
Jesus answered, "I am the way, the truth, and the life, no man comes to the Father but through me."
-John 14-6 NIV
touche
Earlier in Romans it talks about Moses trying to pursuade the Jews that Jesus is the Messiah.
No. no and thrice no. Atheism in not a religion.
link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism)
I can understand why some people who hold superstititious beliefs cannot understand an absence of belief, as it runs counter to everything they hold sacred.
I used to be a Christian, and then I learn to think for myself.
Another rare topic that JAG and I completely agree on.
So would you say you have faith that there is no God? BTW, there is no such thing as "use to be a Christian".
Papewaio
03-15-2006, 06:37
And in Romans it talks about despite being wayward the Israelites will be saved regardless...
Divinus Arma
03-15-2006, 06:50
So would you say you have faith that there is no God? BTW, there is no such thing as "use to be a Christian".
Disagreed. I failed to mention that I, too, "used to be a christian".
I was about 18 or 19. I succumbed to the power of the modern christian message. I truly believed. And I was horrified by the billions that would perish in hell. It was heartbreaking... I can't express how painful that revelation was.
It was all so clear to me then.... The foolish pride of the saducees and pharisees, the pride of modern men, my own pride.
I remember walking for miles after "accepting Christ". I walked from 10am until 10pm that day. From one city to another, and on to a third. Just thinking. (I was a heavy backpacker as a teenager, so 12 hours of walking was nothing to me then). I felt enlightened. Like a burden had been lifted. I felt free. But I also felt enormous sadness from the price that humanity would pay.
So yes. I "used to be a Christian" too. And I wasn't even raised Christian at all.
Now my belief in a singular God is only stronger, and my resentment for arrogant religion has only grown. Any religion that affrims itself as the only way is a plague. An evil. A force for destruction. Despicable. Arrogant, self-serving, controlling, greedy, and power-mongering.
There is nothing wrong with organized worship in any religion. But there is everything wrong with organized evangelicalism- regardless of the religion.
Banquo's Ghost
03-15-2006, 10:36
Now my belief in a singular God is only stronger, and my resentment for arrogant religion has only grown. Any religion that affrims itself as the only way is a plague. An evil. A force for destruction. Despicable. Arrogant, self-serving, controlling, greedy, and power-mongering.
There is nothing wrong with organized worship in any religion. But there is everything wrong with organized evangelicalism- regardless of the religion.
Wise, wise words. :bow:
Zain, your arguments leave me cold. I don't propose to debate you, since reasoned debate is wasted on a zealot. Your arguments only drive me further away from your faith. Your god is one that I reject utterly, for the reason so eloquently expressed in 'The Brothers Karamazov' (which, by the way, is an excellent and thought-provoking read for any religious person):
"I cannot believe in a god that would permit the suffering of a single child."
As I wrote before, I would hate to spend eternity in the Heaven that you desire. It would be packed with insufferable people full of certainty and devoid of compassion. No doubt the madmen that blow themselves up along with women and children in the hope of heaven and innumerable virgins would be right alongside everyone else who believes so unshakeably that their way is the only way. Why you people think your revealed truth is the only one, when even your own Christianity is riven with different sects, let alone other myths and belief systems, is beyond me. :no:
The most sensible philosophy of heaven and hell (should such places exist) was expressed to me in a Chinese parable (paraphrased for the Christian paradigm):
A man died and went to Judgement. He was surprised to find that instead of a big courtroom with a vengeful God, he was met by Saint Peter. The saint smiled. 'Welcome to heaven, for you have been a kind and generous man.' He led the man to a wonderful place, full of birdsong and warm sun. Spread before him in the sunlit fields were great tables full of extraordinary foods, sweets, fruit and wines of every vintage. The many people sat around the tables were laughing and singing, the very eptiome of happiness.
'The only rule in Heaven is that you may only use the spoons to eat,' said Peter. The man noticed that these spoons were two metres in length, which was odd, but everyone was using them to feed each other, so it didn't matter.
The man thanked the saint, but was curious. 'I have always wondered why our loving God made Hell,' he said. 'May I see what it is like for the poor souls?'
Saint Peter smiled and nodded. They walked a way, until they came to another land, exactly the same as the first - warm and pleasant. The same tables groaned under good things. But the people there were emaciated and scabrous, their bones showing through shrunken flesh. They had miserable, glaring eyes, reddened with frustrated weeping. They could see the marvellous treats, but beyond their reach.
Seeing the man's furrowed brow, Peter pointed out the spoons, each held tightly in a person's hand. A few angry souls were still trying to lift food into their own mouths and failing because of the long handles. They glared and berated their neighbours. They swore and cursed God.
'The rule here,' said Peter sadly, 'is exactly the same as in Heaven.' The man nodded and they returned to the place where people helped each other, instead of themselves.
I like that story. Unfortunately, not all things in the world are two-metre spoons. You'd think someone would just jam their face in the food..
One might say that I'm missing the point, but I intend this answer to be as much a metaphor as the parabole.
InsaneApache
03-15-2006, 11:19
So would you say you have faith that there is no God? BTW, there is no such thing as "use to be a Christian".
No. Faith is a blind acceptance of the supernatural. I have a certainty.
Why can't I be an ex-christian?
R'as al Ghul
03-15-2006, 11:26
No. Faith is a blind acceptance of the supernatural. I have a certainty.
Do you mean you're certain that there's no God? How?
I call myself agnostic because I don't belief but can't be certain about a nonexistence.
InsaneApache
03-15-2006, 11:43
Do you mean you're certain that there's no God? How?
I call myself agnostic because I don't belief but can't be certain about a nonexistence.
Which God do you suggest I can't be certain about?
Baal.
Zeus.
Thor.
Yahweh.
Horus.
Saturn.
Need I go on?
R'as al Ghul
03-15-2006, 12:08
A multitude of gods doesn't give me certainty about the nonexistence of any of them. Neither can I be sure that any of them exists. As far as I know all of them could exist at the same time.
I basically share your opinion, though. In the other thread about this topic I stated that: "I believe that humans created gods and not the other way round". Maybe some of those old gods died because people stopped to believe in them? :wink:
What I can't say is that I'm certain about any gods nonexistence.
I suspect that they don't exist, but how can we/you be certain?
Banquo's Ghost
03-15-2006, 12:09
I like that story. Unfortunately, not all things in the world are two-metre spoons. You'd think someone would just jam their face in the food..
One might say that I'm missing the point, but I intend this answer to be as much a metaphor as the parabole.
The two-metre spoon is as arbitrary as anything else these gods have done and dozy rules seem to be the fare of organized religions. As is mankind's desire to get around the rules, so I would say you're making the point really well! ~D
If I am attracted to any religious notions, it is the pantheistic pagan 'spirits of nature' type approach - such as the Greek pantheon - where the gods take sides, shaft their favourites, gamble with people's hopes and lives, are as venial as their creation and seem to only be interested in sex with naiads and other people's husbands/wives.
Truly then, could men be said to be made in the gods' images and it fits the observed facts way better. ~:yin-yang:
mystic brew
03-15-2006, 12:14
well, you can't be certain of a negative. the only evidence can be lack of evidence.... etc.
But just as those who believe in god 'know with certainty' there is a god/s, i think those who don't believe must be allowed to say the same.
As long as neither says they can prove it! ~:cool:
mystic brew
03-15-2006, 12:16
A multitude of gods doesn't give me certainty about the nonexistence of any of them. Neither can I be sure that any of them exists. As far as I know all of them could exist at the same time.
I basically share your opinion, though. In the other thread about this topic I stated that: "I believe that humans created gods and not the other way round". Maybe some of those old gods died because people stopped to believe in them? :wink:
What I can't say is that I'm certain about any gods nonexistence.
I suspect that they don't exist, but how can we/you be certain?
so are you saying that it's impossible to prove the existence of god? (honest enquiry here, not trying to bait!)
Banquo's Ghost
03-15-2006, 12:22
well, you can't be certain of a negative. the only evidence can be lack of evidence.... etc.
As the old scientific axiom goes:
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
:saint:
mystic brew
03-15-2006, 12:27
:bow:
*tags Haruchai*
you're it...
so all we can do is advance on the continuing lack of evidence. It's an assumptions, and as my ginger bearded scottish teacher used to say (ad nauseam) assumptions make an ass of u and me. see what he did there?
R'as al Ghul
03-15-2006, 12:38
well, you can't be certain of a negative. the only evidence can be lack of evidence.... etc.
I agree.
But just as those who believe in god 'know with certainty' there is a god/s, i think those who don't believe must be allowed to say the same. As long as neither says they can prove it! ~:cool:
I may have missed the post where a believer said that he knows "with certainty" that there is a god. I can't relate to that.
I know that some people can believe so strongly that they believe it to be true. That doesn't make it true for me.
so are you saying that it's impossible to prove the existence of god? (honest enquiry here, not trying to bait!)
I would agree that it's not possible to prove any god's existence as well as it's not possible to prove their existence.
I know of no way and philosophers have tried to prove/disprove god for centuries, to no avail.
But I'm making an absolute statement here, which is in itself problematic.
mystic brew
03-15-2006, 12:49
Zain said something about certainty earlier in the thread.
A agree with you about it being probably impossible to prove one way or the other. But for me, if it's impossible to prove the existence or not of god, then to all intents and purposes, God is entirely irrelevant. If he doesn't take an active role then he doesn't have any impact on any decision i make.
So i'm an atheist...
R'as al Ghul
03-15-2006, 13:12
I basically agree.
I would say though, that God isn't entirely irrelevant to our life
because of the many people that believe very strongly in his existence.
Suicide bombers, for example can influence our life. They do so in the name of their god (or so they say). One could argue that this god affects us indirectly. But then again you could argue that it's only the terrorist.
Either way, we have to deal with religions and believers and therefore with god/ gods.
Absurd isn't it? :dizzy2:
mystic brew
03-15-2006, 13:20
i should have said irrelevant to me...
but yes, agreed. whether man made god or vice versa religion remains a powerful force in our world.
My interest is in fighting the attitudes i see as wrong while trying to find common ground the rest of the time
R'as al Ghul
03-15-2006, 13:23
My interest is in fighting the attitudes i see as wrong while trying to find common ground the rest of the time
Let's have a beer on common ground.
That is if you drink with agnostics. :wink:
~:cheers:
mystic brew
03-15-2006, 13:28
i'll drink with anyone!
<-- alcoholic? nah...
But i really have trouble with the dogmatic who claim a monopoly on truth. Hence my respect for those who are willing to listen and change...
So tell me, how does your moral code work? what are your touchstones?
R'as al Ghul
03-15-2006, 14:11
So tell me, how does your moral code work? what are your touchstones?
Well, I had to think a bit about this.(And I've to work between posts) :wink:
It's actually difficult to answer since moral codes are so complex. Plus, I don't like to label myself.
I grew up in a christian society (Germany) but my family is non-believing.
The christian values, or the moral code implicit in them, have formed me to a certain extense.
I view the bible as a piece of old literature that can nevertheless provide valuable insights into society and the way it works.
I even agree with a lot of Jesus' preachings but I don't take them as God's words.
I get allergic when someone tries to convert me or bothers me with their religion.
In my point of view Religion is a personal thing.
I follow Kant's imperative. I generally have respect for all life-forms on earth. I can see truth and wisdom in buddhist teachings.
Science is a strong touchstone for me. But I acknowledge that there are things that science can't explain (yet).
Does this even remotely answer your question?
mystic brew
03-15-2006, 14:25
yep, and thanks for taking the time!
and work... *sigh* shouldn't i be doing some of that? perils of 'working from home' ~:rolleyes:
and i think you and i have very similar attitudes on religion, which, as children of post WWII europe (i assume) isn't entirely surprising!
Certainly in the UK there is a recognisable seperation of the personal and the political.
For example, I have no problem with the archbishop of Canterbury. He is a good man, and i often think he speaks sense, and he is entitled to speak from a religious point of view because he represents the anglican community.
but i find Tony Blair's assertion that he answers to a higher power reprehensible, because as an elected official his higher power should be bloody us! not god.
[/rant] ~;)
a little while ago there was a survey of what the 1st secular commandment, and overwhelmingly it was 'do to others as you would be done to'.
Which is quite a good one, but unfortunately the inability of many people to properly empathise is a profound barrier to it's proper execution.
Personally i find myself in broad agreement with secular humanism, but since i mistrust organised dogma it's only useful as a skeleton to my ethics.
And in Romans it talks about despite being wayward the Israelites will be saved regardless...
Regardless of what? Of whether they accept Jesus or not? No.. No.. this is saying that they CAN be saved, but only if they believe in Jesus Christ. The bible does not contradict itself, so John 14:6 should end this debate.
-ZainDustin
Mongoose
03-16-2006, 03:19
In other words, turn or burn:dizzy2:
Why are you so certain that your faith is the only true one? All you have is faith, so does the rest of the religous world. Logically, if it's mostly only a guess, then you have almost 0 chance of going to heaven, no matter how morally you live your life.
Cowhead418
03-17-2006, 01:25
I am an ex-Christian and have now turned into a full-blown atheist. I was sick and tired of the story changing constantly, and people making up stories to the Christian faith to suit their beliefs. This God you believe in Zain is a very horrible being. To damn someone for eternity just because they don't believe in Him is not an example of an "all-loving God." Especially when they have all the reason in the world to not believe in Him because He has never given any evidence towards his existence.
Why should we believe what the Bible says anyway? Just because? How do we know it is not as relevant and truthful as a fairytale?
I would like Zain to answer this following argument: I definitely don't want to live forever, because eternity just seems too much for me. However, I would like to live longer than we are allowed. I believe that there is no afterlife, no God, no Heaven, no Hell, just complete oblivion after death. In fact, I also believe Heaven is no better than Hell. My reasoning is this: In life, you cannot experience the highs without the lows. Why does that shower at the end of the day feel so good, why do students love Summer Vacation, why does eating, sleeping, and drinking feel good to us? It is because of the negatives such as hunger, thirst, fatigue, homework, etc. Imagine a life where nothing ever bad happened to you, it would be awful. Eating, drinking, sleeping, friendships would be meaningless because you wouldn't feel hunger, thirst, fatigue, or sadness. There are many other examples of this of course. In Heaven, there is no low, no negatives, correct? In Hell, there is no high, no positives. They are the two extremes, and I would hate to be in either one. Heaven would be great at first, sure, but it would become incredibly dull, and without conflict and negatives to balance out the extreme positives, everything we would do for happiness would become utterly meaningless. However, if Heaven did have the proper balance of highs and lows, then it would cease to be Heaven because in a "paradise" you can't have anything bad happen to you. So in my view, Heaven would be a terrible place and I would rather have complete oblivion after death. What do you have to say about this?
PS: What really started to turn me away from my belief was my CCD teacher telling me that Catholics believe your soul stays with your body after death until Judgment Day, where the decision for each soul to go to Heaven or Hell is made. I had never heard that before and believed it to be utter crap. This God seems like an egotistical, arrogant, heartless bastard to me, and I wish to be no part of Him.
I am an ex-Christian and have now turned into a full-blown atheist. I was sick and tired of the story changing constantly, and people making up stories to the Christian faith to suit their beliefs. This God you believe in Zain is a very horrible being. To damn someone for eternity just because they don't believe in Him is not an example of an "all-loving God." Especially when they have all the reason in the world to not believe in Him because He has never given any evidence towards his existence.
Why should we believe what the Bible says anyway? Just because? How do we know it is not as relevant and truthful as a fairytale?
I would like Zain to answer this following argument: I definitely don't want to live forever, because eternity just seems too much for me. However, I would like to live longer than we are allowed. I believe that there is no afterlife, no God, no Heaven, no Hell, just complete oblivion after death. In fact, I also believe Heaven is no better than Hell. My reasoning is this: In life, you cannot experience the highs without the lows. Why does that shower at the end of the day feel so good, why do students love Summer Vacation, why does eating, sleeping, and drinking feel good to us? It is because of the negatives such as hunger, thirst, fatigue, homework, etc. Imagine a life where nothing ever bad happened to you, it would be awful. Eating, drinking, sleeping, friendships would be meaningless because you wouldn't feel hunger, thirst, fatigue, or sadness. There are many other examples of this of course. In Heaven, there is no low, no negatives, correct? In Hell, there is no high, no positives. They are the two extremes, and I would hate to be in either one. Heaven would be great at first, sure, but it would become incredibly dull, and without conflict and negatives to balance out the extreme positives, everything we would do for happiness would become utterly meaningless. However, if Heaven did have the proper balance of highs and lows, then it would cease to be Heaven because in a "paradise" you can't have anything bad happen to you. So in my view, Heaven would be a terrible place and I would rather have complete oblivion after death. What do you have to say about this?
PS: What really started to turn me away from my belief was my CCD teacher telling me that Catholics believe your soul stays with your body after death until Judgment Day, where the decision for each soul to go to Heaven or Hell is made. I had never heard that before and believed it to be utter crap. This God seems like an egotistical, arrogant, heartless bastard to me, and I wish to be no part of Him.
Honestly, I'm very tired of talking about this now (after days and days) but I'll try my best.
I believe that you are interpreting Heaven to be utterly boring, correct? Well then, I'll have to agree with you that no lows would get boring. But, we really don't know how it's going to be, so I look forward to it.
That thing about the Catholics is nothing but misinterpretation. Don't believe it, that's utterly retarted, if you ask me.
Why should God let people that don't believe in him into his "house"?
-ZainDustin
In other words, turn or burn:dizzy2:
Why are you so certain that your faith is the only true one? All you have is faith, so does the rest of the religous world. Logically, if it's mostly only a guess, then you have almost 0 chance of going to heaven, no matter how morally you live your life.
You don't get into Heaven by works, only faith.
What I believe is based on the Christian bible. If it's a bunch of made up stories (which I Highly doubt) then I do'nt know what will happen. I'll have to say that if God doesn't exist, then neither does Heaven. Do you agree?
Banquo's Ghost
03-17-2006, 11:03
PS: What really started to turn me away from my belief was my CCD teacher telling me that Catholics believe your soul stays with your body after death until Judgment Day, where the decision for each soul to go to Heaven or Hell is made. I had never heard that before and believed it to be utter crap.
Just for information, your teacher was utterly wrong, or as is often the case, antagonistic towars the Roman church. Catholics believe no such thing.
Interestingly, the Catholic faith (which has a fairly powerful internal consistency having been interpreted by some of the finest philosophical minds of the mediaeval period) includes a much more palatable idea to the afterlife - Purgatory.
Catholics believe that very few people live lives that qualify them for Heaven - only the saints go direct. Equally, very few people live lives that deserve the horrors of Hell (Southern Baptists mainly :laugh4:). Almost everyone goes to Purgatory when they die, which is a place of cleansing - where the soul understands the clarity of every action they took in life and how it affected those around them. Unlike in life, the soul cannot lie to itself about its sin - every hurtful fact and its result is revealed in the light of God's truth.
Time of course, has no real meaning there, but the soul can then begin its journey of purgation, of reconciliation with God. Very serious sins take a very long 'time', whereas a decent but flawed person can achieve entry into Heaven quite quickly.
The Catholic position is that just being baptised does not guarantee Heaven. You have to earn it. Even the worst sinner can be redeemed, it just takes an awful long time. After 1500 years of this view, the Protestant churches decided on the idea of the Elect, ie believe and you are saved. One of the drawbacks of letting people read the Bible in their own language is they get all sorts of weird ideas! :oops:
Some theologians have postulated that Purgatory may be earth itself, in other words a second chance in the flawed world to do good - similar to reincarnation - and that the miseries we see are actually there to encourage us sinners to expiate our sins through good works - though this is by no means official doctrine which states that Purgatory is a separate spiritual realm.
Of course, one of the drivers for the Reformation was the Roman Catholic Church's very smart business decision that as prayer was said to help souls move through Purgatory, you could sell ready made 'indulgences' ie pre-paid tickets through the nastier bits. Kind of a first class trip through repentance.
Neat idea, very good for the patronage of the arts, but the purists decided this was ungodly and set up their own churches - and banned stuff like dancing and beer. :furious3:
But as an explanation for a loving God who also metes out punishments, Purgatory seems to me very consistent. I am drawn to the idea that one can pray for one's loved ones, as well as the friendless, and speed their journey towards happiness. The more people who think kindly of you, the quicker you achieve paradise, which is rather symmetrical and worthy of an omnipotent Being.
Byzantine Mercenary
03-17-2006, 15:27
First of all, original sin itself is all wrong. Before adam and eve ate "the apple" they did not know the difference between good and evil. Therefore, they did not know it was evil to eat the apple. So how can God punish us for something we did not know was wrong? The "expulsion from eden" was our spiritual awakening and transformation into thinking, choosing human beings. It fits in perfectly with evolution.
Hence, no need for a messiah.
But let's assume for fun that original sin is real. How does the physical death of Jesus cancel out my "spiritual death"? So he died on the cross. Doesn't seem like a big deal to me. Death is an eventuallity, whether you are murdered or die peacefully. Now if Jesus went to hell for all eternity, that would be a different story. THAT would be a sacrifice.
Finally, assuming that (a) original sin is real and (b) Jesus really was God and that his physical death actually menat something, then why the heck do I need to believe it? If he made the sacrifice, then "believing" in it is pointless.
Jesus is the boogey man waiting to kill you in the closet or under the bed. He's Santa Claus in the North Pole. Superman flying throught the sky.
Worship Jesus and you are worshipping a man in the place of our one God. Christianity is pagan. The father, the son, the holy ghost = 3 gods, not one.
Granted, Christianity has done alot of good in this world, but it has also done just as much evil. And all in worship of a human being.
The teachings of Jesus show us a different path. Jesus taught us to be closer to God by simplifying everything. He told as that there are two commandments (love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul and mind, and love your neighbor as yourself.)
The beauty of Jesus was his ability to get people past all the BS bureaucracy and rules that the saducees and pharisees had attached to our worship of the Lord. His disciples, especially Paul, were brilliant in that they brought the Lord to those outside of Judaism. But they were not trying to promote Jesus as God, they were trying to bring the teachings of Jesus to a wider audience.
The sooner that we put the destructive myths of Original Sin and Jesus-as-God into the religious history books, the better off the world will be. One day, the world will all worship the one true God and this distraction from our Lord will be put to a final rest.
Oh- and one more thing. Adam is hebrew for mankind. The Torah is the old testament and was first written in hebrew. So there is no "Adam" as a single person. So "mankind" "ate" "the apple". It also says nothing about a rib bone.
Literal translation of Genesis 1:27 from Hebrew to English-
And created | God | the mankind | in His image, | In the image of | God | He created | him; | male | and female | He created | them
And there is a whole lot more where that came from.
this is the same old argument used against christians, you were a christian once wern't you? surely you understand the concept of the holy trinity?
as for original sin Jesus died for our sins, the sins you and i have commited and will commit not just somethign our ancestors may or may not have done
as for whether you have to believe or not i can't say who will and who won't end up in heaven so i can't give a conclusive anser, however jesus taught to ask and it will be givem to you so if you don't ask (try and believe) you may not get.
Divinus Arma
03-17-2006, 15:46
Haruchai, I too, like the idea of purgatory and find it more in agreement with a loving God.
However, I do not at present accept anything less than total strict monotheism, though I have the humility to admit that I have no certainty. I am certain that there is no less than one God. For me, Jesus, the whole trinity, etc, is a pagan perspective. But, again, what do I know for sure? Nothing.
this is the same old argument used against christians, you were a christian once wern't you? surely you understand the concept of the holy trinity?
as for original sin Jesus died for our sins, the sins you and i have commited and will commit not just somethign our ancestors may or may not have done
as for whether you have to believe or not i can't say who will and who won't end up in heaven so i can't give a conclusive anser, however jesus taught to ask and it will be givem to you so if you don't ask (try and believe) you may not get.
Which was the same old argument? I voiced many.
I do sin. And I do ask for forgiveness. And it is given. The messiah is each of us, within ourselves. Our savior is ourselves- to have a relationship with the Lord and continually seek to do his will. We can never be perfect, and Jesus was right when he said that all will fall short. But what differentiates one man from another is his continual individual development towards God's purpose. Man must continually strive to align his own purpose with God's purpose. This is neither action, nor thought, not attitude, not intentions alone. It is all of this, but under the recognition that one will never attain perfection, though one can certainly pursue it. And through this pursuit, one finds himself closer alligned to the will of God.
Jesus was unique because he recognized that he was his own pathway to God. It not "No one comes to the father but my me". It is "No one comes to the father but by you". He was "the way the truth and the light", but so can each of us be. We are each simultaneously our own worst enemy and own best friend. We can facilitate our realtionship with the Lord, or counter it and deny ourselves. But each is a Messiah. Our relationship with God is on an individual level, so each of us requires an indivudal saviour. Ourselves.
Banquo's Ghost
03-17-2006, 16:53
However, I do not at present accept anything less than total strict monotheism, though I have the humility to admit that I have no certainty. I am certain that there is no less than one God. For me, Jesus, the whole trinity, etc, is a pagan perspective. But, again, what do I know for sure? Nothing.
On St Patrick's Day, I should be limbering up the old shamrock to show you how the Trinity is actually three aspects of the same one God, just as the old fella did for the pagan Irish kings. :saint:
But I'm about to go out and get blotto, so maybe tomorrow, as penance for the sins I am undoubtedly going to commit tonight ~:cheers:
Byzantine Mercenary
03-17-2006, 17:48
Haruchai, I too, like the idea of purgatory and find it more in agreement with a loving God.
However, I do not at present accept anything less than total strict monotheism, though I have the humility to admit that I have no certainty. I am certain that there is no less than one God. For me, Jesus, the whole trinity, etc, is a pagan perspective. But, again, what do I know for sure? Nothing.
Which was the same old argument? I voiced many.
I do sin. And I do ask for forgiveness. And it is given. The messiah is each of us, within ourselves. Our savior is ourselves- to have a relationship with the Lord and continually seek to do his will. We can never be perfect, and Jesus was right when he said that all will fall short. But what differentiates one man from another is his continual individual development towards God's purpose. Man must continually strive to align his own purpose with God's purpose. This is neither action, nor thought, not attitude, not intentions alone. It is all of this, but under the recognition that one will never attain perfection, though one can certainly pursue it. And through this pursuit, one finds himself closer alligned to the will of God.
Jesus was unique because he recognized that he was his own pathway to God. It not "No one comes to the father but my me". It is "No one comes to the father but by you". He was "the way the truth and the light", but so can each of us be. We are each simultaneously our own worst enemy and own best friend. We can facilitate our realtionship with the Lord, or counter it and deny ourselves. But each is a Messiah. Our relationship with God is on an individual level, so each of us requires an indivudal saviour. Ourselves.
The whole trinity = polytheism argument,
It seems that you like me, were once a christian without understanding the religion properlly. Many years of being a christian and i did not understand so much about the trinity and forgiveness but just because the teachings of some christians are faulted does not mean that the whole religion as a whole is incorrect.
Didn't you you say that you stopped being a christian because a loving god would not allow one child to suffer?
Well the problem with this and any other issue of god interveneing is you are faced with two chioces, you could have a god that controlled and protected that prevented all harmfull acts, everyone would be safe and would live a long time but as a consequance you would be being constantly audited and edited. imagine an over protective parent, it would be intollerable to force such rules on those who do not wish them even if it was for altruistic purposes (just think what has happened when the church has wrongly tried this).
God could compleately abandon us, we would have compleate free will, but at the price of not even knowing our creator or our purpose, and without the guidance that such a powerful force could provide.
In the end its probably a bit of a compramise god makes himself known but not so much that people who do not want to follow him can't, or so little that those who wish to don't know how to follow him. In a model like this Hell would merely be a life without god for all those who reject him, basicly giving them what they wanted.
Again Imagining god as a parent, would you want to live with them your whole life? no, you would want fundamental independance even if it is only the inderpendance to get things wrong on your own. It is the same with god god does not want to force us and over protectiveness is a form of controlling.
Your right, religion is a very personal thing, as i said before the purpose of Jesus was to correct the older teachings and bring new ones, the most important of which is just how much god loves us and just how far he is willing to go to forgive us. Look at the contemporary Pagan gods they all required bribes and sacrifices for their favours. But the God Jesus teached of was one that needed no such trinkets as you would expect any truly loving and powerful being to.
I don't mean to be rude but it seems that your beliefs are very like Arianism perhaps you could say you were an Arian christian?
Divinus Arma
03-17-2006, 18:34
The whole trinity = polytheism argument,
It seems that you like me, were once a christian without understanding the religion properlly. Many years of being a christian and i did not understand so much about the trinity and forgiveness but just because the teachings of some christians are faulted does not mean that the whole religion as a whole is incorrect.
I felt I understood it then and I feel I understand it now. I understand that the holy trinity is, as Haruchai wrote, "three aspects of the same one God". I got it then, and I get it now.
But I still think that the Holy Trinity as a concept is in disagreement with the concept of monotheism. In fact, the lord is in everything, but that does not mean I should worship God "In the name of the holy oak tree" or "the puffy cotton cloud", as do people who pray "In the name of Jesus the Christ".
The difference is not only in worship, but in self-awareness and being. It has been explained many times that Jesus and God will sit side by side in heaven. Thus, in the "spiritual realm" Jesus and God are two distinct self-aware entities.
Didn't you you say that you stopped being a christian because a loving god would not allow one child to suffer?
No. I did not. Please read my comments for clarification, BM. I will be happy to discuss this with you.
Well the problem with this and any other issue of god interveneing is you are faced with two chioces, you could have a god that controlled and protected that prevented all harmfull acts, everyone would be safe and would live a long time but as a consequance you would be being constantly audited and edited. imagine an over protective parent, it would be intollerable to force such rules on those who do not wish them even if it was for altruistic purposes (just think what has happened when the church has wrongly tried this).
God could compleately abandon us, we would have compleate free will, but at the price of not even knowing our creator or our purpose, and without the guidance that such a powerful force could provide.
In the end its probably a bit of a compramise god makes himself known but not so much that people who do not want to follow him can't, or so little that those who wish to don't know how to follow him. In a model like this Hell would merely be a life without god for all those who reject him, basicly giving them what they wanted.
Again Imagining god as a parent, would you want to live with them your whole life? no, you would want fundamental independance even if it is only the inderpendance to get things wrong on your own. It is the same with god god does not want to force us and over protectiveness is a form of controlling.
I agree with all of this, in essence. I too believe that God grants us free will, and we have the choice to align our purpose with his, or to refuse his will and follow a selfish purpose that serves only ourselves.
Your right, religion is a very personal thing, as i said before the purpose of Jesus was to correct the older teachings and bring new ones, the most important of which is just how much god loves us and just how far he is willing to go to forgive us. Look at the contemporary Pagan gods they all required bribes and sacrifices for their favours. But the God Jesus teached of was one that needed no such trinkets as you would expect any truly loving and powerful being to.
I also agree with this. Jesus is an outstanding example of what can happen when one chooses to align their purpose with God. But then ,society could not function if we all just "walked the earth" as Jesus did.
I don't mean to be rude but it seems that your beliefs are very like Arianism perhaps you could say you were an Arian christian?
Not at all rude. I can understand your confusion. First and foremost, I am no longer a Christian. Nor do I misunderstand the holy trinity as Arianism. As Christianity teaches, the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit co-exist but share the same being. This is my understanding of Christianity and it is one that I regard as polytheistic, despite the unity of these entities in one divinity. This is similar to Hinduism, which has a variety of divine beings, all of which co-exist but share divinity as a manifestation of Brahman, the Hindu concept of our Lord.
Marcellus
03-17-2006, 18:44
Why should God let people that don't believe in him into his "house"?
Why should he send them to eternal torture just because they didn't believe in him? Why the two extremes?
Byzantine Mercenary
03-18-2006, 00:17
I felt I understood it then and I feel I understand it now. I understand that the holy trinity is, as Haruchai wrote, "three aspects of the same one God". I got it then, and I get it now.
But I still think that the Holy Trinity as a concept is in disagreement with the concept of monotheism. In fact, the lord is in everything, but that does not mean I should worship God "In the name of the holy oak tree" or "the puffy cotton cloud", as do people who pray "In the name of Jesus the Christ". ok well il try and give an explanation of why i consider it not polytheistic then, basicly i see god as a force outside all reasons and boundarys that is present in everything in the form of the holy spirit. God also created the universe, that aspect of god is as a father of the universe seperate from gods actions as the holy spirit. Then the third aspect, Jesus is god made present amoung man to act as a sacrifice, god must be the sacrifice as no one else could fulfil this role he was there at the begining he his here now and he sacrificed himself for us. Perhaps like the different states of water the same thing in different forms and with different purpose but the same overall thing. A theologin could explain better.
The difference is not only in worship, but in self-awareness and being. It has been explained many times that Jesus and God will sit side by side in heaven. Thus, in the "spiritual realm" Jesus and God are two distinct self-aware entities.
No. I did not. Please read my comments for clarification, BM. I will be happy to discuss this with you.
sorry if i was wrong i thought you said it in this thread but i can't find it to quote, you said how you were a christian and had stopped beign a christian because you couldn't believe in a god that allowed one child to die maybee someone else said it.
I agree with all of this, in essence. I too believe that God grants us free will, and we have the choice to align our purpose with his, or to refuse his will and follow a selfish purpose that serves only ourselves.
I also agree with this. Jesus is an outstanding example of what can happen when one chooses to align their purpose with God. But then ,society could not function if we all just "walked the earth" as Jesus did.
Not at all rude. I can understand your confusion. First and foremost, I am no longer a Christian. Nor do I misunderstand the holy trinity as Arianism. As Christianity teaches, the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit co-exist but share the same being. This is my understanding of Christianity and it is one that I regard as polytheistic, despite the unity of these entities in one divinity. This is similar to Hinduism, which has a variety of divine beings, all of which co-exist but share divinity as a manifestation of Brahman, the Hindu concept of our Lord.
no, what i meant was that if you disagree with the trinity but agree with the rest of jesus's teaching you would be of a similar belief to that of an Arian Christian (but if you do not consider yourself a christian that is clearly not so) i hold the opposite stance to you and hold Hinduism to be a monotheistic religion this is probably why i dissagree with you on the trinity.
Divinus Arma
03-18-2006, 01:59
ok well il try and give an explanation of why i consider it not polytheistic then, basicly i see god as a force outside all reasons and boundarys that is present in everything in the form of the holy spirit. God also created the universe, that aspect of god is as a father of the universe seperate from gods actions as the holy spirit. Then the third aspect, Jesus is god made present amoung man to act as a sacrifice, god must be the sacrifice as no one else could fulfil this role he was there at the begining he his here now and he sacrificed himself for us. Perhaps like the different states of water the same thing in different forms and with different purpose but the same overall thing. A theologin could explain better.
I know you do not consider it polytheistic. When I was a Christian I did not consider it polytheistic either. In fact, it made perfect sense.
But now I see it all as a distraction from our relationship with the Lord. We can each have an individual relationship with God and anybody who tells you otherwise is trying to control you. Furthermore, the concept of a "middle man" acting as a conduit is completely asinine. The fact that Jesus was dead 2000 years ago makes it all the more asinine. Christians worship a dead guy in the belief that the dead guy was God manifested as a human, and thus worshipping the dead guy gives you a ticket to heaven. It's nuts! The fact that Jesus is supposed to be a "group messiah" makes it all the more absurd because each one of us should be seeking out an individual duty to God. Thus, each of us have a responsibility to be our own saviours.
sorry if i was wrong i thought you said it in this thread but i can't find it to quote, you said how you were a christian and had stopped beign a christian because you couldn't believe in a god that allowed one child to die maybee someone else said it.
I told you before, I never said that. I would not never say that. You have me confused with somebody else. Of course I believe in a God that would allow one child to die- how about billions? If God were to jump in and rescue everybody on a daily basis, it would destroy our free choice.
no, what i meant was that if you disagree with the trinity but agree with the rest of jesus's teaching you would be of a similar belief to that of an Arian Christian (but if you do not consider yourself a christian that is clearly not so) i hold the opposite stance to you and hold Hinduism to be a monotheistic religion this is probably why i dissagree with you on the trinity.
Well, in a way Hinduism and Christianity are very similar in that respect. The difference is that Hinudism does not threaten people with eternal damnation for "not believing the way we want you to".
I see the good in Christianity, but I do not agree with the portion that warps it. I can take the best from each religion and work with it.
Byzantine Mercenary
03-18-2006, 02:44
I know you do not consider it polytheistic. When I was a Christian I did not consider it polytheistic either. In fact, it made perfect sense.
But now I see it all as a distraction from our relationship with the Lord. We can each have an individual relationship with God and anybody who tells you otherwise is trying to control you. Furthermore, the concept of a "middle man" acting as a conduit is completely asinine. The fact that Jesus was dead 2000 years ago makes it all the more asinine. Christians worship a dead guy in the belief that the dead guy was God manifested as a human, and thus worshipping the dead guy gives you a ticket to heaven. It's nuts! The fact that Jesus is supposed to be a "group messiah" makes it all the more absurd because each one of us should be seeking out an individual duty to God. Thus, each of us have a responsibility to be our own saviours.
of course we each can have a direct relationship with god this is entirely what i believe but jesus came and died so that our sins could be forgiven by god and by ourselves otherwise how could anyone possibly atone for all the millions os sins that they perform during their lives?
I told you before, I never said that. I would not never say that. You have me confused with somebody else. Of course I believe in a God that would allow one child to die- how about billions? If God were to jump in and rescue everybody on a daily basis, it would destroy our free choice.
sorry i thought you did, i remember you talking about how you were a christian and couldn't accept the concept of hell and then saying that you couldn't believe in a god that let children suffer or something i can't find the comments (why can't you search the backroom like the other forums? its very annoying!:sweatdrop: )
Well, in a way Hinduism and Christianity are very similar in that respect. The difference is that Hinudism does not threaten people with eternal damnation for "not believing the way we want you to".
well i don't remember threatening anyone with damnation, don't hold me or the christian faith as a whole, responsible for the unchristian (im sure you know that we are forbidden to judge) attutudes of others.
I see the good in Christianity, but I do not agree with the portion that warps it. I can take the best from each religion and work with it.
every group has an eliment that ruins it for the rest
Divinus Arma
03-18-2006, 03:00
of course we each can have a direct relationship with god this is entirely what i believe but jesus came and died so that our sins could be forgiven by god and by ourselves otherwise how could anyone possibly atone for all the millions os sins that they perform during their lives?
Well this is really the only portion of your comments in the discussion that actually matters at this point. The rest is pretty much moot.
How do we atone for our sins? Simple. By recognizing them and asking for forgiveness. We know when we do wrong. Some are bigger sins (like checking out naked hotties on the web.:2thumbsup: ), and some are almost forgetable, like cutting someone off on the freeway then flipping 'em the bird. And some are just downright evil- murder, rape, molesting alter boys, etc.
How God forgives us and what we feel in that forgiveness is a little different depending on the sin. Do evil and you will know how long it stays with you, no matter how much you ask for forgiveness. Do a minor sin and you will be forgiven with relatively little difficulty.
More importantly tha even forgiveness, is life allignment. Namely, setting a course in your life that is alligned to the will of the Lord. Plan your day knowing that you will be challenged throughout. Seek strength, comfort, wisdom, and tenacity from the Lord. When you begin to falter, ask for assistance. When you still fail, ask for forgiveness. It is not a matter of "doing good deeds", it is a matter of living a life alligned with God's will. When this done, one no longer needs to think about doind good deeds for their own sake. It becomes automatic and ingrained within your spiritual self. And in this way, we pre-emptively act to prepare ourselves against sin and to do the will of God. The best "atonement" for sins is to not commit them in the first place. Through right allignment, we can actively pursue perfection, while planning for oursleves to evetual fail in some measures.
Then the Lord will know we are his servants. And when we ask forgiveness of him individually, he will not hesitate to forgive and continue his love for us.
Banquo's Ghost
03-18-2006, 11:07
sorry i thought you did, i remember you talking about how you were a christian and couldn't accept the concept of hell and then saying that you couldn't believe in a god that let children suffer or something i can't find the comments (why can't you search the backroom like the other forums? its very annoying!:sweatdrop: )
BM, it was me who quoted Dostoevsky's 'The Brothers Karamazov'. The book is about organized religion, in 19th century Russia (the Orthodox Church) and about the challenges it provides to faith. At one point Alyosha (IIRC, long time since I read it last) objects to the teachings of the Church by saying - "I cannot believe in a God that would permit the suffering of a single child."
This goes to the root of belief in a loving God who actively intervenes in our lives. If He could send His son to die for us, and, as most Christians seem to believe, He listens to prayers and acts upon them, why does He permit any suffering at all, let alone the unfathomable awfulness of a suffering child?
If He does not so act, out of respect for the free will we took in the Garden of Eden, then he is a remote God lacking in the one essential component of love - compassion. This unengaged God is closer to the pagan pantheon, than the Christian diety. The Bible is all about God intervening, so why then and not now? The fundamentalists love to quote the stories of Sodom and Gomorrah where He stomped on lots of bad people - this is after the Fall, so why not now? Jesus was said to heal the sick and raise the dead - why not now, and why them? (Yes, I know the hardcore will pop up and quote so-called miracles of today, but I've never read of any of them being properly substantiated, and I have known some really kind people of immense faith die miserably when they should have been first on the saved list. Consistency is a good thing).
Alyosha was asking the question that challenges all faith - Why, God, why?
It is a question that affected my own faith, and to which I have yet to find a satisfactory answer. I don't accept unquestioning blind stupidity of thought from humanity, I certainly won't accept it from someone who wishes to be my God.
Byzantine Mercenary
03-19-2006, 02:54
BM, it was me who quoted Dostoevsky's 'The Brothers Karamazov'. The book is about organized religion, in 19th century Russia (the Orthodox Church) and about the challenges it provides to faith. At one point Alyosha (IIRC, long time since I read it last) objects to the teachings of the Church by saying - "I cannot believe in a God that would permit the suffering of a single child."
This goes to the root of belief in a loving God who actively intervenes in our lives. If He could send His son to die for us, and, as most Christians seem to believe, He listens to prayers and acts upon them, why does He permit any suffering at all, let alone the unfathomable awfulness of a suffering child?
If He does not so act, out of respect for the free will we took in the Garden of Eden, then he is a remote God lacking in the one essential component of love - compassion. This unengaged God is closer to the pagan pantheon, than the Christian diety. The Bible is all about God intervening, so why then and not now? The fundamentalists love to quote the stories of Sodom and Gomorrah where He stomped on lots of bad people - this is after the Fall, so why not now? Jesus was said to heal the sick and raise the dead - why not now, and why them? (Yes, I know the hardcore will pop up and quote so-called miracles of today, but I've never read of any of them being properly substantiated, and I have known some really kind people of immense faith die miserably when they should have been first on the saved list. Consistency is a good thing).
Alyosha was asking the question that challenges all faith - Why, God, why?
It is a question that affected my own faith, and to which I have yet to find a satisfactory answer. I don't accept unquestioning blind stupidity of thought from humanity, I certainly won't accept it from someone who wishes to be my God.
It is a good question that is often asked of religious people in the end it all comes down to freedom imagine you had a body guard escorting you everywhere and stopping anything that they dissaproved of even when you didn't understand why, there is so much in the world that god does not like more then we could ever know they are all taken seriously if god were to interfere with one then god would have to interfere with the rest too.
Freedom would be almost nonexistant and many would find existance intorerable. So, say a child dies, you blame god for not stopping this in so doing you don't have to worry about the real cause of this childs death but the fact is that the child died for a reason i.e. there was a factor that caused it to happen there are two groups of such factors the man made and the natural, a natural cause is part of the very reason we are here and so the suffering caused by it is a bi product of the way the universe works and so should be balanced out if not outweighed by the good that comes of the natural world (there is probably more of this then we will ever know too) or the event was caused directly or indirectly by man, in which case god did intervene but instead of giving mankind a fish he taught him to fish (i.e. he taught us how to live best without harming others) so he has in fact intervened.
Do you wan't to be controlled? any intervention is control and im sure you yourself know that by helping one person another can be indirectly harmed, (e.g. letting a man in line in front of you at a sandwhich shop, i kind act, untill, because you intervened he leaves the shop earlyer just as Franz Ferdinand goes by!)
This is the best explanation i can give at two in the morning!
Mongoose
03-19-2006, 03:48
You don't get into Heaven by works, only faith.
What I believe is based on the Christian bible. If it's a bunch of made up stories (which I Highly doubt) then I do'nt know what will happen. I'll have to say that if God doesn't exist, then neither does Heaven. Do you agree?
What I'm saying is that if there are 100s of different stories, and all of them are obviuosly metaphor, then there's an equal chance of one being right VS anyother. Can you see why it's foolish to assume that you've found the true one and that everyone else is going to hell?
It would make the most sense to just ive as morally as you can and just hope that the real God will respect that.
I find it likely that if God exists, he's neither the God Christian nor any other of the the versions that humans have pulled out of the air.
Byzantine Mercenary
03-20-2006, 00:27
What I'm saying is that if there are 100s of different stories, and all of them are obviuosly metaphor, then there's an equal chance of one being right VS anyother. Can you see why it's foolish to assume that you've found the true one and that everyone else is going to hell?
i agree that no one can say who is going to heaven, Jesus himself said none but god knows, and remember that Jews, Muslims and Christian all worship the god of the old testament
Divinus Arma
03-21-2006, 16:44
It is a good question that is often asked of religious people in the end it all comes down to freedom imagine you had a body guard escorting you everywhere and stopping anything that they dissaproved of even when you didn't understand why, there is so much in the world that god does not like more then we could ever know they are all taken seriously if god were to interfere with one then god would have to interfere with the rest too.
Freedom would be almost nonexistant and many would find existance intorerable. So, say a child dies, you blame god for not stopping this in so doing you don't have to worry about the real cause of this childs death but the fact is that the child died for a reason i.e. there was a factor that caused it to happen there are two groups of such factors the man made and the natural, a natural cause is part of the very reason we are here and so the suffering caused by it is a bi product of the way the universe works and so should be balanced out if not outweighed by the good that comes of the natural world (there is probably more of this then we will ever know too) or the event was caused directly or indirectly by man, in which case god did intervene but instead of giving mankind a fish he taught him to fish (i.e. he taught us how to live best without harming others) so he has in fact intervened.
Do you wan't to be controlled? any intervention is control and im sure you yourself know that by helping one person another can be indirectly harmed, (e.g. letting a man in line in front of you at a sandwhich shop, i kind act, untill, because you intervened he leaves the shop earlyer just as Franz Ferdinand goes by!)
This is the best explanation i can give at two in the morning!
EXCELLENT!!! This was the best argument for non-intervention I have read yet. You have completely articulated my understanding of suffering in this world.
NOW, try this on for size: Buddhism teaches that all suffering is the result of desire and ignorance. Essentially, our ongoing want is the cause of suffering. We want many things: happiness, life without pain, comfort, food, etc.
Only by recognizing the impermanence of all things can we alleviate suffering. We must, as Christians say, Let go and Let God.
This does not mean that we should not work towards peace and prosperity, instead it means that we should recognize that everything is temporary. When we realize this, everything comes into perspective.
This works well with an ecletic religious perspective, because it recognizes the freedoms that God has given us (as explain by BM) while providing a way to cope with the pain that we experience in our short lives.
Our attempts to be eternal instead of worship, gratitude, and humility is the source of human pain. We should continually strive for perfection in right action while simultaneously recognizing the futility of all.
mystic brew
03-21-2006, 17:56
interesting, and, BM, the most convincing arguement for non-intervention. It's certainly the best argument i can see.
Do you also subscribe to the view that this non-intervention applies to prayer as well?
otherwise, IMO the non-intervention theory falls flat on it's arse. as you say, the moment a decision is made to intervene it instantly results in all inaction being made a decision, and an intervention also.
Divinus Arma
03-21-2006, 18:36
interesting, and, BM, the most convincing arguement for non-intervention. It's certainly the best argument i can see.
Do you also subscribe to the view that this non-intervention applies to prayer as well?
otherwise, IMO the non-intervention theory falls flat on it's arse. as you say, the moment a decision is made to intervene it instantly results in all inaction being made a decision, and an intervention also.
Hopefully I can answer this. Because we are the Lord's agents and it is our purpose to freely choose to do His will, the Lord answers prayers through the actions of people.
What do people ask for when they pray? Money? Power? Health?
They should be praying for strength, for understanding, for patience, and for humility. Our prayers are ALWAYS answered, when our prayers are unselfishly motivated and fall within the Lord's design.
For example, let us assume you have a sick child. Do you pray for his health? Instead pray that your child will be filled with understanding and courage. Pray that you, too, will be understanding and accept our impermanence in this world. Of course you want your child to be well! But this is the cause of your suffering- desire for more than our fragile mortality offers. Thank the Lord that you were able to know your child and be grateful that he had a life to live at all.
When we pray for the external, our wishes will not be fullfilled. When we pray for the internal, our prayers are always answered. And because of this, we can do the good work of God and become agents of change. Through us, God will do external work and make our human experience a better one.
Kanamori
03-21-2006, 18:42
To answer the original question: I believe in a God's existence, and I believe that the existence of an objective reality is dependent on the existence of some version of God. However, I don't look to any texts as they were all written by other men and suseptible to many and various errors, if God -- whatever it may be -- would ever talk to us, IMO.
mystic brew
03-21-2006, 18:49
Divinus Arma...
thank you. that was damn near poetry! rather beautiful. I don't happen to agree with it, but there we go.
I would still maintain that was intervention, but that's a pov issue.
This is why i love discussing these things. every now and again someone says something you've not heard before!
cheers
Divinus Arma
03-21-2006, 19:50
Divinus Arma...
thank you. that was damn near poetry! rather beautiful. I don't happen to agree with it, but there we go.
I would still maintain that was intervention, but that's a pov issue.
This is why i love discussing these things. every now and again someone says something you've not heard before!
cheers
:bow: Thanks.
On the matter of intervention, just to clarify. First of all, the Lord is a living God, one who dwells on our level of existence. He is all things and all things are in Him. He does not "live" on a cloud in a bodily form sitting atop a throne, presiding over the dead. He is here. In our time and with us.
God does not intervene by causing us to be remotely controlled robots doing his bidding. Animals do this. Existence is God's "purpose"; He simply exists and was not created, He has chosen to enjoy that existence with His creation. Our purpose is to choose freely to align our will with that of God's will. This is morality. We know what is God's will through prayer. Human experience can contribute towards guiding that prayer ever closer to the Lord. This is a collective experience of humanity, and we are drawing ever nearer to Him.
God operates "externally" (to us) through science. He has created existence using defined limitations on energy which act to make chaos predictable and consequently useful to Him in its ability to interact with itself. It is this order that provides proof of the Lord's existence. The alternative is based on chance, which is unpredictable chaos. The problem with unpredictable or total chaos, is that rules of order are unable to form because chaos itself counteracts against itself. Thus when a trend begins to form, chaos destroys the trend.
A simple proof that shows that chaos is not unpredicatble is this simple rule:
Matter cannot be created or destroyed, it can only alter its form. This is important because unpredictable chaos allows matter, or energy, to do anything, including double itself or cease existence without another force acting upon it.
How does predictable chaos prove God? Another way to frame this question is, can predictable chaos self-purpose? Or in other words, can chaos designate for itself how it is predictable? The answer is no. Chaos requires a will to shape its limitations, no matter how small. The opposite would be unpredictable chaos, because the energy decides action for itself, to include chaoticide and self-perpetuation.
Thus, predictable chaos proves the existence of a will that defines the limitations of chaotic energy in order to make that energy interact usefully with itself towards some end. This will is what we call God.
The question than becomes whether this will is self-directed or externally directed. Or in other words, is this will self-aware or not. This is the difference between a personal God like that of Judeo-Christian belief systems or an inpersonal God like that of Eastern perspectives.
More to come...
Divinus Arma
03-21-2006, 21:16
Mystic Brew, I promise this isn't complete rambling. It does come back around to the arguments surrounding divine intervention, or lack thereof.
So, the question was whether God is personal or inpersonal. Is he self-aware or is he simply a "will"? Is this "will" purposefully self-directed or does it act without purpose.
The question, my friend, is one of purpose. We must ask: what is God's purpose and is that purpose one chosen by God? A self-aware "will" designates its own purpose. A "will" without self-awareness does not assign its own purpose. What is God's purpose, if God Himself did not designate it? There is only one answer. God is chaos. He is a self-directed "will" without purpose. This is an impossibility, because, as was discussed early, chaos is self-defeating. Chaotic will could be self-destructive or self-replicating. Deicide. Or similarly, multiple and competing wills without purpose. Order would not exist because time is outside of this. A second is infinity and infinity is in a second.
That means that God is self-aware. A singular self-aware will that designates its own purpose in shaping the predictability of chaos, and thus of order. Consequently, It or He, may design.
Divinus Arma
03-21-2006, 22:53
Mystic Brew, Last portion.
Design and purpose are interrelated and a component of the discussion on intervention. From what I wrote, I believe it is difficult to refute the existence of God when debating within this frame work of chaos logic. I believe it is also difficult to refute that god is self-aware when using this logic.
But what about us? Why would God care about us?
It comes back to purpose. God's self-decided purpose is his design. His creation. To determine our own purpose within that design, we need to understand the purpose of everything within the design. This could get quite complex, but humanity has categorized and classified much of everything within our small sphere of influence. We know how our environment interacts withitself to remain self-sustaining. Our earth, this self-sustaining object acts in complete harmony with the will of God. It does everything it is "told" according to predictable chaos, exactly as God has designed. That's where we come in. We are unique in known existence in that we are the only being similar to God in a way that we can relate. We fullfill God's purpose by choosing to do his will. This validates his purpose for existence. We complete the circle.
"Divine Intervention" as you may call it, would be when we have a direct relationship with the Lord and our will is alligned with his. We pray for an internal embrace of him, nothing more. We are not asking for anything that is not naturally there. We reconnect the link and become a conduit for his will. Thus he acts through us, by our choice, and can directly influence his creation.
For example, let us assume you have a sick child. Do you pray for his health? Instead pray that your child will be filled with understanding and courage. Pray that you, too, will be understanding and accept our impermanence in this world. Of course you want your child to be well! But this is the cause of your suffering- desire for more than our fragile mortality offers. Thank the Lord that you were able to know your child and be grateful that he had a life to live at all.
Yes, take your lumps and smile about it. This makes no sense to me; of course I want my child to be insightful and strong, but for now, it's more important for me that he is well. If he does not survive, then he does not live; that much is obvious. If I were to find the silver lining, fine, if that's what I need to do to cope, but no god is responsible for my forced perception or for the health of my child.
Divinus Arma
03-21-2006, 23:55
Yes, take your lumps and smile about it. This makes no sense to me; of course I want my child to be insightful and strong, but for now, it's more important for me that he is well. If he does not survive, then he does not live; that much is obvious. If I were to find the silver lining, fine, if that's what I need to do to cope, but no god is responsible for my forced perception or for the health of my child.
I agree. We want our children to be healthy. But God does not externally intervene just as BM so eloquently explained. He only intervenes internally as I explained.
Kralizec
03-22-2006, 00:18
"Chaos" and "order" are all in the eyes of the beholder- quite literally. We designate something as chaos because from our perspective, it is uncontrolled. However I hold a very deterministic and mechanical view of the world. Concepts like "chaos" and "chance that [event] will happen" hold meaning to us, because we are ignorant. But everything that has happened was always meant to happen. The Punic wars, the renaissance, etc were at the start of the universe BOUND to happen. If a hugely powerful entity would know all the current conditions and directions of matter and energy, he could both perfectly reconstruct what has happened before and also predict everything that is yet to be, reasoning by causality.
In the eyes of (the hypothetical) God, the being that knows all conditions, there is no chaos (or order, as both terms are meaningless). Just a bunch of matter and energy that flows logically from one point to another, the consequense of the conditions before, the prelude to the conditions thereafter. This, and no less, is omniscience.
Christianity teaches that God is all knowing. Satan rebelled against his creator. So did humanity. How did this get pass him? Or did he mean that to happen? Do we have the "power", the fundamental characteristic to do things God can't predict? In other words, do we have Free Will? Or is God omniscient? I think the two are mutually exclusive.
mystic brew
03-22-2006, 01:47
Divinus Arma,
*chuckles*
wasn't expecting this!
I will read and digest, but don't have the time right now!
Byzantine Mercenary
03-22-2006, 13:41
interesting, and, BM, the most convincing arguement for non-intervention. It's certainly the best argument i can see.
Do you also subscribe to the view that this non-intervention applies to prayer as well?
otherwise, IMO the non-intervention theory falls flat on it's arse. as you say, the moment a decision is made to intervene it instantly results in all inaction being made a decision, and an intervention also.
Good Question :2thumbsup:
well, Jesus said when healing people that it was their faith that had healed them now, the placebo effect is a resonably accepted theory and would supply some of the method by which prayer can directly help (i believe that there must be a use to it as Jesus said to do it).
God is of course omnipotent and so knows what we want before we ask for it and so praying is not realy to inform god what you want him to do, as much as to clarify your thoughts, spend time thinking of others and hopefully get strength from the holy spirit. I am of the mind that god has given us the cures to our problems, we just need to look for them, use the gifts that we and others were given and sources like the bible and other christians for guidance, prayer is also to show support, many people even atheists apreciate it when people pray for them, it is a good way to show that you care about whats going on in their lives. :2thumbsup:
Essentially god intervened once, when he made the universe, in that intervention everything else was layed out in gods mind so for him the future would be pre-determined there is free wil its just he knows all the desisions that we will make!, so in a sence there is intervention, at the beggining that has decided the whole history of the world, and must have if god is omnipotent after all ''god does not play dice'':laugh4: .
Byzantine Mercenary
03-22-2006, 13:52
"Chaos" and "order" are all in the eyes of the beholder- quite literally. We designate something as chaos because from our perspective, it is uncontrolled. However I hold a very deterministic and mechanical view of the world. Concepts like "chaos" and "chance that [event] will happen" hold meaning to us, because we are ignorant. But everything that has happened was always meant to happen. The Punic wars, the renaissance, etc were at the start of the universe BOUND to happen. If a hugely powerful entity would know all the current conditions and directions of matter and energy, he could both perfectly reconstruct what has happened before and also predict everything that is yet to be, reasoning by causality.
In the eyes of (the hypothetical) God, the being that knows all conditions, there is no chaos (or order, as both terms are meaningless). Just a bunch of matter and energy that flows logically from one point to another, the consequense of the conditions before, the prelude to the conditions thereafter. This, and no less, is omniscience.
Christianity teaches that God is all knowing. Satan rebelled against his creator. So did humanity. How did this get pass him? Or did he mean that to happen? Do we have the "power", the fundamental characteristic to do things God can't predict? In other words, do we have Free Will? Or is God omniscient? I think the two are mutually exclusive.
no they are not, god knows what we will do, but gives us the freedom to do it, he gave Satan the freedom to rebel and he gave humans the freedom to rebel he knew it would happen but he allowed them the free will to rebel anyway.
Byzantine Mercenary
03-22-2006, 13:53
:bow: Thanks.
On the matter of intervention, just to clarify. First of all, the Lord is a living God, one who dwells on our level of existence. He is all things and all things are in Him. He does not "live" on a cloud in a bodily form sitting atop a throne, presiding over the dead. He is here. In our time and with us.
God does not intervene by causing us to be remotely controlled robots doing his bidding. Animals do this. Existence is God's "purpose"; He simply exists and was not created, He has chosen to enjoy that existence with His creation. Our purpose is to choose freely to align our will with that of God's will. This is morality. We know what is God's will through prayer. Human experience can contribute towards guiding that prayer ever closer to the Lord. This is a collective experience of humanity, and we are drawing ever nearer to Him.
God operates "externally" (to us) through science. He has created existence using defined limitations on energy which act to make chaos predictable and consequently useful to Him in its ability to interact with itself. It is this order that provides proof of the Lord's existence. The alternative is based on chance, which is unpredictable chaos. The problem with unpredictable or total chaos, is that rules of order are unable to form because chaos itself counteracts against itself. Thus when a trend begins to form, chaos destroys the trend.
A simple proof that shows that chaos is not unpredicatble is this simple rule:
Matter cannot be created or destroyed, it can only alter its form. This is important because unpredictable chaos allows matter, or energy, to do anything, including double itself or cease existence without another force acting upon it.
How does predictable chaos prove God? Another way to frame this question is, can predictable chaos self-purpose? Or in other words, can chaos designate for itself how it is predictable? The answer is no. Chaos requires a will to shape its limitations, no matter how small. The opposite would be unpredictable chaos, because the energy decides action for itself, to include chaoticide and self-perpetuation.
Thus, predictable chaos proves the existence of a will that defines the limitations of chaotic energy in order to make that energy interact usefully with itself towards some end. This will is what we call God.
The question than becomes whether this will is self-directed or externally directed. Or in other words, is this will self-aware or not. This is the difference between a personal God like that of Judeo-Christian belief systems or an inpersonal God like that of Eastern perspectives.
More to come...
This has to be one of the best proofs for god ive encountered :2thumbsup:
mystic brew
03-22-2006, 14:30
DA's posts are certainly well thought through, and acknowledges, indeed privileges science, dealing with reality rather than rejecting it as the fundamentalists do. It's the sort of religion that is rational.
How to reconcile that this is any particular god, or specifically the christian god, is another matter. From my point of view, i can follow this reasoning, but can't call this a proof as such. there are still some assumptions in the reasoning that come down to 'i believe'. As there should be in matters of faith.
and, BM, i understand the function of prayer in the sense of cleansing ones and/or focusing. I use meditation to the same ends (godless heathen that i am). The point here being that finding the solutions to your own problems in prayer is certainly not confined to any one faith, and indeed is not even confined to those that have any belief in deity at all.
To this extent i can't ever see myself subscribing to any particular religion, because of the leap between believing that there is a creator to believing that humanity can possibly understand that creators intent or beliefs.
To that extent i think the deists have the most logically version of faith.
Byzantine Mercenary
03-22-2006, 14:33
why create something and then not involve yourself with it?
mystic brew
03-22-2006, 14:47
Right...
(some thinking time later)
thank you for your long and interesting posts. As an atheist, i differ in some assumptions, but can i say i respect thoughtful faith, and i am by no means trying to pick a fight by disagreeing with some of your thoughts. The reason I have posted here so little is because i see way too much 'us&them' type arguments that empahsise differences. And i've already learnt more about thoughtful religion than in a dozen 'OMG you're going to hell/how can you believe that crap' threads.
that said...
First of all, the Lord is a living God, one who dwells on our level of existence. He is here. In our time and with us.
We know what is God's will through prayer. Human experience can contribute towards guiding that prayer ever closer to the Lord.
as a base assumption everything else you say follows. However, this is the point where we have to agree to disagree. This is where faith comes in.
God operates "externally" (to us) through science. It is this order that provides proof of the Lord's existence. The alternative is based on chance, which is unpredictable chaos. The problem with unpredictable or total chaos, is that rules of order are unable to form because chaos itself counteracts against itself. Thus when a trend begins to form, chaos destroys the trend.
A simple proof that shows that chaos is not unpredicatble.
yep... agreed. but this proof is applicable to this universe. It's absolutely no surprise that as humans we view this as a special set of circumstances, whether atheist or believer. As a believer i can see how God can be seen here, as an atheist i can also see how the multiverse explains this just as well. It's like a puddle looking around and seeing how perfectly the world fits it's existence. if there are infinite possibilities then no designer is necessary.
really, both your pov and mine are forms of circular reasoning and inherently improvable at this point.
How does predictable chaos prove God? Another way to frame this question is, can predictable chaos self-purpose? Or in other words, can chaos designate for itself how it is predictable? The answer is no. Chaos requires a will to shape its limitations, no matter how small. The opposite would be unpredictable chaos, because the energy decides action for itself, to include chaoticide and self-perpetuation.
Thus, predictable chaos proves the existence of a will that defines the limitations of chaotic energy in order to make that energy interact usefully with itself towards some end. This will is what we call God.
Since you believe that God created the laws of the universe i can follow your logic here. however, the subltely of the rules doesn't necessarily imply God.
The question than becomes whether this will is self-directed or externally directed. Or in other words, is this will self-aware or not. This is the difference between a personal God like that of Judeo-Christian belief systems or an inpersonal God like that of Eastern perspectives.
and more.... :)
mystic brew
03-22-2006, 14:49
why create something and then not involve yourself with it?
i think 'then' is the question there.
WE are told by most faiths that God/s exist outside the universe. or at least independent of it, time being an artifact of the universe. so there is no difference in the creation of the universe and involvement in it.
Byzantine Mercenary
03-22-2006, 14:54
so therefore any creator god must be involved with their creation?
mystic brew
03-22-2006, 15:06
not quite.
just that your question was... not really applicable. for the god there is no create 'then' be involved... since god is independent of time, the question doesn't make sense.
does that explain?
Banquo's Ghost
03-22-2006, 15:53
why create something and then not involve yourself with it?
The act of creation can be an end in itself. I have created several original works with which I am no longer involved. Having created them, they are to my mind complete, and I move on to another work of creation.
Many creations can interest their creator for a long time (a child, for example) or for no time at all once complete - or any span in between.
Banquo's Ghost
03-22-2006, 16:02
DA's posts are certainly well thought through, and acknowledges, indeed privileges science, dealing with reality rather than rejecting it as the fundamentalists do. It's the sort of religion that is rational.
I agree, DA's position is consistent and well argued.
DA, your views are the most 'Christian' I have read in many a year, and you have clearly thought carefully and prayerfully.
My only contention is the inclusion of the word 'proof' in some statements, because although your logic is intriguing, it relies on some fundamental assumptions from the world of faith rather than science.
Chaos, for example, is well explained in mathematics, without any recourse to supernatural interventions. In addition, many of the conditions you use as starting points are natural to this universe, and constrained to it.
Words like proof and evidence do not belong, IMO, to discussions on faith. They are philosophical constructs of science, and trying to apply the concepts of either construct to the other tends to muddy the waters unnecessarily.
Having said that, you'd make a great Jesuit. Your arguments are elegant and worthy of belief. :2thumbsup: (That's a compliment, by the way ~:))
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.