Let's see you argue with THIS profound thought of mine

[Iamme]

Where did you come from? Yes...YOU!

























From random chance thrown out by the benevolent universe? That's the chance and evolution argument, you know.

[Neutiquam Erro]

The men's room, just a moment ago. Why? Did I miss something?

[Mojo]

From random chance thrown out by the benevolent universe? That's the chance and evolution argument, you know.No it isn't. It's a creationist/IDer strawman

[Marquis de Carabas]

Houston, originally.

[Mojo]

OK, that's both parts of his post answered.

Move along. Nothing to see here.

[PatKelley]

Random chance does not exist in its purest form, as there is some order and no complete chaos; rules exist founded upon and extrapolated from a few very simple precepts. These can be combined into almost endless complexity, especially on the scale of the macroscopic, and become as fleeting as ideas on the scale of the subatomic, all bound by the same rules.

"Benevolence" is an attribute which a purely materialistic universe would not possess.

I do not buy Creation ex Deus in any of its current forms, as they are all arguments for Creation ex Nihilo with different dates and different degrees of arbitrary men/women/things behind the curtain. As they are all similar in this regard, and equally unamenable to testing, they essentially form a null set with a big sign saying "God's Domain."

Sorry, but I dare to tamper there, and don't like being shut out by fiat.

I also would like to add the thread initiating statement is not very high in the ranking of profound thoughts.

[Neutiquam Erro]

"Benevolence" is an attribute which a purely materialistic universe would not possess.



How so?

[UrsulaV]

Hmm, if I understand your usual argument, if I don't tell you, you won't know where I'm from, and therefore I must be God.

Worship away. *does the Queen Mother wave*

[PatKelley]

How so?
Anthropomorphizing the universe, if I may use the term, is a human convention of attributing our own experience to a dissimilar object; ascribing motivation (an Ill Wind, an Angry Storm, a Raging Fire, a Gentle Breeze, a Calm Ocean...and the list goes on) to a nonintelligent aggregation that is demarked purely by our own limited experience.

A bit of human arrogance that is irrelevant to the question of whence I came, being given a Hobson's choice of one irrational statement.

[Odin]

Where did you come from? Yes...YOU!

Well, there was this giant, a cow and some ice...

[Iacchus]

Random chance does not exist in its purest form, as there is some order and no complete chaos; rules exist founded upon and extrapolated from a few very simple precepts. These can be combined into almost endless complexity, especially on the scale of the macroscopic, and become as fleeting as ideas on the scale of the subatomic, all bound by the same rules. Yes, either that, or God just rolled out His magic carpet, and voila! ... albeit it may have taken 10-20 billion years. ;)

[uruk]

Where did you come from? Yes...YOU!
From random chance thrown out by the benevolent universe? That's the chance and evolution argument, you know.
That's what you call a profound thought? Wow!

[Iamme]

No it isn't. It's a creationist/IDer strawman

Okay, I just got back from another thread. Quite the tease I am, AIN'T I. :)

Each and everyone of you came from a mommy and a daddy. And more exacting...each and every one of you came from a sperm and an egg.

What is a sperm and an egg. It is a blueprint! It is not random chance. There was a design forr YOUR life encoded by SOMEthing for you to be here!

So now, let's look once again at the universe and how IT got here. So you believe it all just happened eh? No plan or design. No blueprint. Uh huh! Yet we know that WE reeeaaaaly didn't just get here without our OWN blueprint.

No folks. The universe and all it contains came itSELF from something that was akin to a seed, which had the blueprint for everything in existance, blueprinted into it. You can call the author of that initial blueprint, God!

Now it's just a matter of whether or not you believe blueprints simply come from nothing. And it says in the Bible that 'only the fool believes there is no God'. For years, from the age of 14 to the age of into my late 40's or more, I too thought the way the bulk of you guys/gals do. Now I am starting to realize the error of my ways, and I am trying to make it right now, with the Lord Almighty.

[Iamme]

That's what you call a profound thought? Wow!

I wasn't finished yet. What I first posted was the 'lead in'. LOL. The rest of my profound thought can be seen with Mojo's quote above. :)

[PatKelley]

Yes, either that, or God just rolled out His magic carpet, and voila! ... albeit it may have taken 10-20 billion years. ;)

Ah. So, why not twenty seconds ago with all of our memory intact and everything created the way it is?

There is no reason why not, as soon as one accepts an instant-mix universe, the Jell-O universe might have been in the fridge forty years or mixed last night. Nothing is gained by this explanation. Nothing new is posited, nothing can be reasoned, as all answers are reduced to one, and so all questions are meaningless.

Abandon all inquiry, all who are created here.

[Marquis de Carabas]

So the entire Universe is made of jizz?

[Iacchus]

So the entire Universe is made of jizz?Of course, why do you think they called it the Big Bang?

:dl:

[PatKelley]

Now it's just a matter of whether or not you believe blueprints simply come from nothing. And it says in the Bible that 'only the fool believes there is no God'. For years, from the age of 14 to the age of into my late 40's or more, I too thought the way the bulk of you guys/gals do. Now I am starting to realize the error of my ways, and I am trying to make it right now, with the Lord Almighty.

Afraid of death? I'd call this a mid-life crisis myself. Got a shiny new superiority complex instead of a sportscar; which you'd get more mileage out of I'm not sure.

[.13.]

So now, let's look once again at the universe and how IT got here. So you believe it all just happened eh? No plan or design. No blueprint. Uh huh! Yet we know that WE reeeaaaaly didn't just get here without our OWN blueprint.

No folks. The universe and all it contains came itSELF from something that was akin to a seed, which had the blueprint for everything in existance, blueprinted into it. You can call the author of that initial blueprint, God!

Now it's just a matter of whether or not you believe blueprints simply come from nothing.


If you are going to argue that you can't just suddenly stop there for no reason. What about the blueprint for god and its author? Did that come from nothing?

So either we can stop at some arbitrary point and say universes blueprint came from nothing or go on and on in our search for authors of the blueprint.

If on the other hand you say that blueprint for god has allways existed then we can just as arbitrarily say that universes blueprint has allways existed but universe just came to existence 13,7 billion years ago.

[Iacchus]

No folks. The universe and all it contains came itSELF from something that was akin to a seed, which had the blueprint for everything in existance, blueprinted into it. You can call the author of that initial blueprint, God!Well, I'm afraid he's right folks. ;)

[PatKelley]

Well, I'm afraid he's right folks. ;)
So, speculation plus speculation equals fact?

I'm certain the math is off, because last time I checked speculation plus speculation equalled ********, or a special on TLC.

[uruk]

Okay, I just got back from another thread. Quite the tease I am, AIN'T I. :)

Each and everyone of you came from a mommy and a daddy. And more exacting...each and every one of you came from a sperm and an egg.

What is a sperm and an egg. It is a blueprint! It is not random chance. There was a design forr YOUR life encoded by SOMEthing for you to be here!

So now, let's look once again at the universe and how IT got here. So you believe it all just happened eh? No plan or design. No blueprint. Uh huh! Yet we know that WE reeeaaaaly didn't just get here without our OWN blueprint.

No folks. The universe and all it contains came itSELF from something that was akin to a seed, which had the blueprint for everything in existance, blueprinted into it. You can call the author of that initial blueprint, God!

Now it's just a matter of whether or not you believe blueprints simply come from nothing. And it says in the Bible that 'only the fool believes there is no God'. For years, from the age of 14 to the age of into my late 40's or more, I too thought the way the bulk of you guys/gals do. Now I am starting to realize the error of my ways, and I am trying to make it right now, with the Lord Almighty.
Where did momy and daddy come from?
The only thing that guides the universe are the conditions that we call the laws of physics. We don't yet know them all or understand complety or how they all work together. Just because we don't fully understand all this is no reason to go and assume something that we cannot prove to exist, is the reason behind all this. You can cam claim and believe all you want, but this gives you no basis or position to tell us that it is so. Only that you believe that it is so.

Our universe is far more complex than we can fully understand yet. The universe does not have to, nor indeed does it, behave in any manner that we wish it to. Just because our things and devices are designed and built does not mean that the universe is also designed and built. You are making an unsubstantiated jump of logic when you do.

All that is required for the universe to exist are the proper conditions for it to exist. As to what is responsible for those condition, is quite possible beyond the extent of this universe and possibly what we can know. This, however is not in anyway shape or form reason to believe that an intelligent agent or entity is responsible. There is no indication of one. You can do so at your leasure but you do so out of ignorance (That is without knowledge, not stupidity. Two different things.) because you cannot know if there is a god. There is no objective to evidence to support it. Just personal conviction.

So you have the situation where two people look at a cloud and one sees a bunny rabbit while other just sees water vapor.

[Iamme]

Afraid of death? I'd call this a mid-life crisis myself. Got a shiny new superiority complex instead of a sportscar; which you'd get more mileage out of I'm not sure.

Well....I always have been afraid of death. There is no future in it. Why not postpone the inevitable. Perhaps God could awaken me one day. Or perhaps there is no real death and we are instantly reverted to our soul/spirit form. But, because I don't know for sure, I will cling to this life as long as possible and as long as I don't get super depressed and do something rash.

As far as the superiority vs. car thing goes? You know, in all actuality I do value intelligent thought more than material goods. (I am very jealous of Thomas Edison.) If I could invent something truly profound, like how to stratify air, I would gloat in this, no doubt. AND I'd be able to afford the finest Lambourghini or perhaps something original with say 1500 horsepower that is street legal. :)

[Iamme]

If you are going to argue that you can't just suddenly stop there for no reason. What about the blueprint for god and its author? Did that come from nothing?

So either we can stop at some arbitrary point and say universes blueprint came from nothing or go on and on in our search for authors of the blueprint.

If on the other hand you say that blueprint for god has allways existed then we can just as arbitrarily say that universes blueprint has allways existed but universe just came to existence 13,7 billion years ago.

Oh nooooo. No THAT argument again. The old 'where did God come from then', trick. Spare me. Please. I have explained that. Okay. Here we go again. God did not need to be seeded himself. He is the 'conglomerate' of all in existance. He is both the begining and the end. He is both the complex and the simple. He is the hot and cold. The loving and the angry. He is the entire ball of wax in one. He didn't need to be seeded because he is where the buck stops. If everything came from what we THINK was nothing, which actually I'm not sure they have ever proven that, (More in a moment), that is sort of the end of the line. Being 'nothing' is sort of the end of the line. Not unles you want to believe nothing begets more nothing. But in actuality, I believe God is energy. And i don't think you dned a father and mother energy to make a baby energy. I think evergy is the first and only thing.

This is what I personally think, until this thought were to be debunked. *I* think the universe is endless. I think they are wrong about the universe being finite with a boundry of 13.5 billion light years in distance and in age. I think that God permeates all of existance from the beginning. There was no beginning per se. I believe the after product of God (energy) is hydrogen gas. This gas is continously being emitted by his energy. This gas keeps the entire universe alive and expanding. But the expansion does not prove there had to be a beginning either. Upon first thought, one simply thinks that to expand means that at first there was some small amount that keeps getting bigger. Not necessarily in an infinite universe. It is a tough concept to grasp, but in reality, what exists is infinity that is getting larger. You'll never figure this out, but I believe this is the closest there is to the truth.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Oh nooooo. No THAT argument again. The old 'where did God come from then', trick. Spare me. Please. I have explained that. Okay. Here we go again. God did not need to be seeded himself. He is the 'conglomerate' of all in existance. He is both the begining and the end. He is both the complex and the simple. He is the hot and cold. The loving and the angry. He is the entire ball of wax in one. He didn't need to be seeded because he is where the buck stops. If everything came from what we THINK was nothing, which actually I'm not sure they have ever proven that, (More in a moment), that is sort of the end of the line. Being 'nothing' is sort of the end of the line. Not unles you want to believe nothing begets more nothing. But in actuality, I believe God is energy. And i don't think you dned a father and mother energy to make a baby energy. I think evergy is the first and only thing.
Seldom have so many words said so little. It's almost a masterpiece, in its way.

[UrsulaV]

Oh nooooo. No THAT argument again. The old 'where did God come from then', trick. Spare me. Please. I have explained that. Okay. Here we go again. God did not need to be seeded himself. He is the 'conglomerate' of all in existance.

... It is a tough concept to grasp, but in reality, what exists is infinity that is getting larger. You'll never figure this out, but I believe this is the closest there is to the truth.

Wow, you're like the kid on the playground saying "Well, infinity plus one!"

Sorry, dude, your "God doesn't need a creator!" argument is turtles all the way down, no matter how many words you string around it.

[TobiasTheViking]

God doesn't need a creator eh?

Well, Big Bang doesn't need something to occour either. It just does.

We don't need causality for God.

We don't need causality for the Big Bang.

[Iamme]

Where did momy and daddy come from?
The only thing that guides the universe are the conditions that we call the laws of physics. We don't yet know them all or understand complety or how they all work together. Just because we don't fully understand all this is no reason to go and assume something that we cannot prove to exist, is the reason behind all this. You can cam claim and believe all you want, but this gives you no basis or position to tell us that it is so. Only that you believe that it is so.

Our universe is far more complex than we can fully understand yet. The universe does not have to, nor indeed does it, behave in any manner that we wish it to. Just because our things and devices are designed and built does not mean that the universe is also designed and built. You are making an unsubstantiated jump of logic when you do.

All that is required for the universe to exist are the proper conditions for it to exist. As to what is responsible for those condition, is quite possible beyond the extent of this universe and possibly what we can know. This, however is not in anyway shape or form reason to believe that an intelligent agent or entity is responsible. There is no indication of one. You can do so at your leasure but you do so out of ignorance (That is without knowledge, not stupidity. Two different things.) because you cannot know if there is a god. There is no objective to evidence to support it. Just personal conviction.

So you have the situation where two people look at a cloud and one sees a bunny rabbit while other just sees water vapor.


First paragraph response: yes, I have no way of forming basis or position on this. Except with such an anology, and relying on other analogies where we can see that everything that we readily acknoledge to have a life cycle, has design within a seed. or, how we can look out at the workings of the universe and see that from the smallest to the largest; atom and galaxy (possibly the universe itself) orbits about some center...I would say that by me saying that the universe was also seeded would be quite a well-based intelligent guess.

Second paragraph: I could argue that just because I feel you are posting to me right now, that in reality, perhaps you really don't exist, and are a figment of my imagination.

Third paragraph: All that are required are the proper conditions? Ha. Uhhhh, we all know THAT much, or else we wouldn't be here. It's in trying to ascertain just why those conditions happened or if they needed any kind of reason. I am of the school that I think there is as necessary of a reason as there was for you to have been seeded so that you can be alive here posting to me.

Yo say there is no indication of an intelligent entity? How about if you held up 5 fingers and I told you that there is no indication that you are holding up 5 fingers. That is almost as ridiculous as you supposing all this needn't be seeded by any any design, yet by looking about, everything we see about us, that we DO understand, was indeed seeded with a blueprint.

Your last paragraph: Wellllll...not quite a good example of our discussion, I don't think. It's not like *I* might say, "It's a rabbit", and you argue and say "it's a water vapor cloud". All anyone ever says about this is that the cloud looks like...has the shape of a bunny rabbit. Not that it's realy a bunny rabbit up there. Try to come up with some better analogy.

[.13.]

Oh nooooo. No THAT argument again. The old 'where did God come from then', trick. Spare me. Please. I have explained that. Okay. Here we go again...

You are completely missing the point of my post. Tobias said it in fewer words than I did. Please read the whole post and reply to the whole post instead of "picking the cherries" as I've seen it put.

[hodgy]

I also would like to add the thread initiating statement is not very high in the ranking of profound thoughts.

:)

Good post

[Ryokan]

Now I am starting to realize the error of my ways, and I am trying to make it right now, with the Lord Almighty.

Isn't there anywhere else you can do that, must it be here?

[PatKelley]

Iamme, you are perceiving things backwards.

The raindrop is not the reason for the raincloud, however much the raindrop wishes it to be so.

Backwards.

[TobiasTheViking]

You are completely missing the point of my post. Tobias said it in fewer words than I did. Please read the whole post and reply to the whole post instead of "picking the cherries" as I've seen it put.
Why thank you. :)
I take it as a compliment, so thank you :D

Sincerely
Tobias

[.13.]

Why thank you. :)
I take it as a compliment, so thank you :D

Sincerely
Tobias

Oh, you're very welcome. :)

[Iamme]

Iamme, you are perceiving things backwards.

The raindrop is not the reason for the raincloud, however much the raindrop wishes it to be so.

Backwards.

Say what? This is getting corned fusing. What are you saying that the rain is, and what are you saying that the cloud is (represents)? And what way do you think *I* am saying it as? I'm going to have to go home soon and have a drink.

[kmortis]

Hmm, if I understand your usual argument, if I don't tell you, you won't know where I'm from, and therefore I must be God.

Worship away. *does the Queen Mother wave*

Oh great UrsulaV, shine down upon us, let us see your long [insert hair color here] locks that we might bask in their ['color]ness. Your [insert personality trait of choice] inspries us, soothes us and guides us.
{whisper, whisper, whisper}

{AHEM} I've just been informed that the Worshiping of UrsulaV must stop henceforth. She is simply a manifes...WOmanifestation of the FSM, and is therefore not elligable for individual worship. Please make a note of it. Thank you for your continued support.

[kmortis]

Say what? This is getting corned fusing. What are you saying that the rain is, and what are you saying that the cloud is (represents)? And what way do you think *I* am saying it as? I'm going to have to go home soon and have a drink.

Iamme,
Did you know that wet streets cause rain? Well, it stands to reason, donit? Ever see wet streets with out there being rain?

And cops cause crime too...show me a high crime area that doens't have a high police presence.

[1984]

Don't fret about where you came from, or where you're headed. Do that and you'll be as Jostein Gaarder describes in his book Sophie's World: A Novel about the History of Philosophy - (paraphrased) "a naked ape living in a vacuum living from hand to mouth". I'm happy with that. At the moment.

[Ladewig]

Now it's just a matter of whether or not you believe blueprints simply come from nothing. And it says in the Bible that 'only the fool believes there is no God'. For years, from the age of 14 to the age of into my late 40's or more, I too thought the way the bulk of you guys/gals do. Now I am starting to realize the error of my ways, and I am trying to make it right now, with the Lord Almighty.

I hope I'm not derailing the thread too much, but, if that is what you truly believe, why do you hang out on this board? Aren't there plenty of other internet communities with people who think as you do - wouldn't it be more fun for you to post there? You don't really expect to convert us to believers with the arguments that you put forth, do you?

[Tricky]

And cops cause crime too...show me a high crime area that doens't have a high police presence.
Well, there's New Orleans...:p

[RandFan]

Where did you come from? Yes...YOU! That which didn't didn't run down my mama's legs. Hopefully the good part.

[UrsulaV]

{AHEM} I've just been informed that the Worshiping of UrsulaV must stop henceforth. She is simply a manifes...WOmanifestation of the FSM, and is therefore not elligable for individual worship. Please make a note of it. Thank you for your continued support.

Oh, well, it was nice while it lasted...

[Nyarlathotep]

Okay, I just got back from another thread. Quite the tease I am, AIN'T I. :)

Each and everyone of you came from a mommy and a daddy. And more exacting...each and every one of you came from a sperm and an egg.

What is a sperm and an egg. It is a blueprint! It is not random chance. There was a design forr YOUR life encoded by SOMEthing for you to be here!

So now, let's look once again at the universe and how IT got here. So you believe it all just happened eh? No plan or design. No blueprint. Uh huh! Yet we know that WE reeeaaaaly didn't just get here without our OWN blueprint.

No folks. The universe and all it contains came itSELF from something that was akin to a seed, which had the blueprint for everything in existance, blueprinted into it. You can call the author of that initial blueprint, God!

What a load of mierda del toro. The encoding of the information into DNA is easily explainable witout recourse to a designer. Take a biology corse sometime. Then, if you have further questions, take a basic genetics course.

Likewise the 'design' of the universe is eve easier to explain without recourse to a designer.

Read a book some time.

Now it's just a matter of whether or not you believe blueprints simply come from nothing. And it says in the Bible that 'only the fool believes there is no God'. For years, from the age of 14 to the age of into my late 40's or more, I too thought the way the bulk of you guys/gals do. Now I am starting to realize the error of my ways, and I am trying to make it right now, with the Lord Almighty.

I have never understood two tactics that religious folks use. One is quoting bible verses to atheists in an attempt to get the to believe, the other is threatening them with threats of hellfire and damnation. Listen up and listen up well, if we don't believe in your God then quoting him from your book is an exercise in futility. You may as well tell us Santa will be very upset with us.

And just because you are getting addled in your old age doesn't mean that God exists. It just means you are getting senile.

[BJQ87]

God doesn't need a creator eh?

Well, Big Bang doesn't need something to occour either. It just does.

We don't need causality for God.

We don't need causality for the Big Bang.


I assume you are in accordance also saying that time is also not in need of causality and "it just is".

If time is not caused, then there was never a beginning to time.

Time requires action, otherwise time would not exist.

Therefore action must also have a cause.

Therefore the big bang must have a cause.

We don't need causality for God because (among other reasons) time is caused by God.

The big bang could not have caused time because actions are brought about by time and not vise-versa. The big bang is an action, unlike God. God can be outside of time and even create time but an action cannot.

I made this argument out of the blue in like 5 min without much influences from anything i've read, so it may have some kinks in it, please by all means tear it apart if you can...or defend it for that matter.

[.13.]

I assume you are in accordance also saying that time is also not in need of causality and "it just is".

If time is not caused, then there was never a beginning to time.

Time requires action, otherwise time would not exist.

Therefore action must also have a cause.

Therefore the big bang must have a cause.

We don't need causality for God because (among other reasons) time is caused by God.


I could just as easily say:
If god is not caused, then there was never a beginning to god.
God requires action, otherwise god would not exist.
Therefore action must also have a cause.
Therefore god must have a cause.

We don't need causality for the big bang because (among other reasons) time is caused by the big bang.
[And scientists are saying something like this. Right? Or is causality a necessity?]


The big bang could not have caused time because actions are brought about by time and not vise-versa. The big bang is an action, unlike God. God can be outside of time and even create time but an action cannot.

God could not have caused time because actions are brought about by time and not vise-versa. God is an action, unlike the big bang. The big bang can be outside of time and even create time but an action cannot.

See how easy it is just to make stuff up.

[Ceritus]

Okay, I just got back from another thread. Quite the tease I am, AIN'T I. :)

Each and everyone of you came from a mommy and a daddy. And more exacting...each and every one of you came from a sperm and an egg.

What is a sperm and an egg. It is a blueprint! It is not random chance. There was a design forr YOUR life encoded by SOMEthing for you to be here!

So now, let's look once again at the universe and how IT got here. So you believe it all just happened eh? No plan or design. No blueprint. Uh huh! Yet we know that WE reeeaaaaly didn't just get here without our OWN blueprint.

No folks. The universe and all it contains came itSELF from something that was akin to a seed, which had the blueprint for everything in existance, blueprinted into it. You can call the author of that initial blueprint, God!

Now it's just a matter of whether or not you believe blueprints simply come from nothing. And it says in the Bible that 'only the fool believes there is no God'. For years, from the age of 14 to the age of into my late 40's or more, I too thought the way the bulk of you guys/gals do. Now I am starting to realize the error of my ways, and I am trying to make it right now, with the Lord Almighty.


Ok I'll bite, using your logic that the universe had to come from "somewhere" why doesn't your god have to come from "somewhere"? Who created Gods blueprint? Why can't the universe/matter/energy have always existed as said god?

I don't understand how someone can state everything had to come from something and this something being "god" came from nothing. Wouldn't it be simpler to believe the universe has always existed and spair the life threatening belief in god. How many would risk their lives to defend their belief in god and how many would risk their lives in the belief of an infinite universe? What benefits are gained by believing in God vs what benefits are gained by acknowledging what is real and what cannot be real?

I certainly doubt any atheist would kill a man over that mans belief in god unless that man had threatened the atheist to the point of defense. Religion is not needed any longer and I still question if it ever was needed but what is done is done all we can do now is try to better ourselves and our world around us by thinking and acting out compassionatley and logically.

[Iacchus]

I could just as easily say:
If god is not caused, then there was never a beginning to god.
God requires action, otherwise god would not exist.
Therefore action must also have a cause.
Therefore god must have a cause.Look at the eye of the storm. Everything is "still" within the center.

[Zep]

Where did you come from? Yes...YOU!

























[Looks around]

To you, this is profound?? :boggled: :rolleyes:

[.13.]

Look at the eye of the storm. Everything is "still" within the center.

Uh, you are getting too Zen on me :)

[Hawk one]

Iamme is obviously just wanting to be special (as his tiny little mind can't cope with the facts of that the universe wasn't created for him specifically). And he is special. In the same way that retarded children are called "special" by their parents.

So don't feed the troll.

[Iacchus]

Iamme is obviously just wanting to be special (as his tiny little mind can't cope with the facts of that the universe wasn't created for him specifically). And he is special. In the same way that retarded children are called "special" by their parents.

So don't feed the troll.No, he is not a troll. He does in fact have something legitimate to say.

[DreadNiK]

No, he is not a troll. He does in fact have something legitimate to say.

No, he really doesn't. All the two of you seem to do is slap your hands over your ears, and shout GODDIDIT! over and over again. It is getting very boring.

[Iacchus]

No, he really doesn't. All the two of you seem to do is slap your hands over your ears, and shout GODDIDIT! over and over again. It is getting very boring.And might I suggest it's simply a matter of perspective?

[Jesus]

First of all, design does not necessarily imply a designer.

Second of all, your argument is going something like this:

Atheist: If everything in the universe needs to have been given a blueprint or cause, so the does this "god" you speak of.

Iamme: No! God is above such laws of logic and reason.

In this case, you need not show evidence or any kind of rationale for the existence of a designer. Since he is supernatural, god defies our ways of thinking. Very weak, and very lazy, because by trying to state that as true, you'll have no obligation when someone asks for actual hard facts to prove your belief.

[Jesus]

And might I suggest it's simply a matter of perspective?To paraphrase Dilbert, I didn't know ignorance was a perspective.

[DreadNiK]

And might I suggest it's simply a matter of perspective?

Your perspective (as far as I can deduce):

I'm right.
Rational debate doesn't matter.

My perspective:

Where the hell is your evidence?


Why don't you take your perspective to a forum that isn't about INTELLIGENT discussion, and looks more kindly on people who refuse to even attempt reasoned debate

[Iacchus]

To paraphrase Dilbert, I didn't know ignorance was a perspective.Ignorance with respect to what, my perspective or yours?

[Jesus]

Ignorance with respect to what, my perspective or yours?Ignorance to the facts. The facts are there regardless of our perspective.

[Iacchus]

Ignorance to the facts. The facts are there regardless of our perspective.Yes, this is correct.

[Jesus]

Yes, this is correct.I must admit, I'm rather surprised you would agree with that.

[HeyLeroy]

:words:
:words:


And it says in the Bible that
Jesus said "He that believeth on me ... out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water" (John 7:38)

So do you guys have fountains of living water spouting from your navels? Or do you just gaze into them all day long?

If you don't have rivers of living water flowing out of your bellies, you must not be true beelievers. So what part(s)of the bible don't you believe?

[Iacchus]

Your perspective (as far as I can deduce):

I'm right.
Rational debate doesn't matter.So long as a person has a reason for what he says, there is a perspective.

My perspective:

Where the hell is your evidence?And do you realize that if we weren't sentient, we wouldn't even be discussing this? There is your evidence.

Why don't you take your perspective to a forum that isn't about INTELLIGENT discussion, and looks more kindly on people who refuse to even attempt reasoned debateThis is a skeptic's site, is it not? Does this somehow make them "special" or, exempt?

[ruach1]

HeyLeroy;1259121]Jesus said "He that believeth on me ... out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water" (John 7:38)
The next verse goes something like, "by this he meant the Spirit whom all who believed in him would receive."

I thank you for reminding me of this verse and this spiritual modality. :)

[ruach1]

Where did you/I come from?

Where signifies place.
What signifies person or thing.
Where is irrelevant here.
What or who seems to be the question.
If the world is dependent upon cause and effect, then I, ultimately, came from the first cause. Call it what you will; I use the word God. :)

[HeyLeroy]

The next verse goes something like, "by this he meant the Spirit whom all who believed in him would receive."



Who gave John the authority to interpret Jesus' words? I thought we were supposed to take every word in the bible lierally. Maybe John put this spin on Jesus' words because he wasn't a walking fountain?

[BJQ87]

God requires action, otherwise god would not exist.

wrong, and that is the premise your whole argument is based on.

[BJQ87]

the big bang isn't an action?

[BJQ87]

God is an action, unlike the big bang. The big bang can be outside of time and even create time but an action cannot.


God is a being. At least the God I'm talking about is a being. Whereas I think you will have a hard time convincing people that the big bang isn't an action.

[kuroyume0161]

God is a being. At least the God I'm talking about is a being. Whereas I think you will have a hard time convincing people that the big bang isn't an action.

Where is this being, well, being exactly?

And if God is just being (meaning - no time, no space), then how could it have caused an event such as creating the universe (and so on)? God works in mysterious ways...

[Iacchus]

And if God is just being (meaning - no time, no space), then how could it have caused an event such as creating the universe (and so on)? God works in mysterious ways...The eye of the storm perhaps?

[BJQ87]

And if God is just being (meaning - no time, no space), then how could it have caused an event such as creating the universe (and so on)? God works in mysterious ways...


God works in mysterious ways? yea, have a problem with not understanding the one who created the universe? completely makes sense.

[.13.]

BJQ87, you are aiming for the barn door 3 feet away and missing.
I could just as easily say:
and
See how easy it is just to make stuff up.

[BJQ87]

BJQ87, you are aiming for the barn door 3 feet away and missing.

Originally Posted by .13. :
I could just as easily say:

and

See how easy it is just to make stuff up.


ok so you take my argument and flip it around and show that it doesnt make any sense the other way around. thanks for the support.

[kuroyume0161]

God works in mysterious ways? yea, have a problem with not understanding the one who created the universe? completely makes sense.

I put that in small print expecting it to be the stock response (in those words or others, yes).

Let's do a little logical passion play.

God exists, right?
God seems to do things, right?
At different times, right?

If such a being is doing things within a time frame, then it exists within a temporality itself. This means that God is under the same auspices as we are. If God is not timeless, then it too must have a beginning. If God existed forever, then when was the universe 'created'? The known universe assuredly has not existed forever, at least not in its current time-space configuration.

Now, if God is timeless, then it is contradictory to assign any temporal even to such a being. Something that is timeless (whatever that can be determined to mean) could not possibly cause an event since events are determined by time and space and, most importantly, change. How exactly does a timeless being 'change'?

See the problem is that attempting to garner knowledge about something that doesn't exist (id est: is outside the known universe) is impossible. Not just improbable. It is impossible. So, succinctly, you believe in nothing.

Can you point to this being that 'created' the universe? I didn't think so. You can only make inferences from subjective reasoning and experience. I'd rather stick to what is objectively reasonable and experiential.

[Tricky]

ok so you take my argument and flip it around and show that it doesnt make any sense the other way around. thanks for the support.
(hint: it's not flipped around, BJ. It's the exact same argument. Only the names have changed. But you are right about the "not making sense" part.)

[TobiasTheViking]

I assume you are in accordance also saying that time is also not in need of causality and "it just is".

If time is not caused, then there was never a beginning to time.

Time requires action, otherwise time would not exist.

Therefore action must also have a cause.

Therefore the big bang must have a cause.

We don't need causality for God because (among other reasons) time is caused by God.

The big bang could not have caused time because actions are brought about by time and not vise-versa. The big bang is an action, unlike God. God can be outside of time and even create time but an action cannot.

I made this argument out of the blue in like 5 min without much influences from anything i've read, so it may have some kinks in it, please by all means tear it apart if you can...or defend it for that matter.

Ehm, you misunderstood.

Time needs causality.

Creating of time doesn't.

Passing of time does.

Creation of time doesn't.

No causality is needed to create time, but once time created, causality is needed within the context of time.

[c4ts]

Where did you come from? Yes...YOU!

























From random chance thrown out by the benevolent universe? That's the chance and evolution argument, you know.

The minute you actually have a profound thought, I'll get back to you.

Until then, I suggest you do your homework first. If you would take the time to read Origin of the Species, and I mean actually read it, not just skim it for the stuff that supports the things you want to say because you have a negative opinion of the subject, you would have a much better understanding of evolution, if not scientific theory as a whole. And then you could be able to discuss something much more relevant than a strawman.

[HeyLeroy]

The eye of the storm perhaps?

How about "The Eye of the Tiger"?

BAHM.....BAHM buhm BAHM......BAHM buhm BAHHHHHHHHHHH.....

I love that song!

[gnome]

I have concluded that it makes sense for the universe to have a creator. I have therefore joined the Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912 sect. I have no logical alternative.

[BJQ87]

God exists, right?
God seems to do things, right?
At different times, right?

If such a being is doing things within a time frame, then it exists within a temporality itself. This means that God is under the same auspices as we are. If God is not timeless, then it too must have a beginning. If God existed forever, then when was the universe 'created'? The known universe assuredly has not existed forever, at least not in its current time-space configuration.

Now, if God is timeless, then it is contradictory to assign any temporal even to such a being. Something that is timeless (whatever that can be determined to mean) could not possibly cause an event since events are determined by time and space and, most importantly, change. How exactly does a timeless being 'change'?

See the problem is that attempting to garner knowledge about something that doesn't exist (id est: is outside the known universe) is impossible. Not just improbable. It is impossible. So, succinctly, you believe in nothing.

Can you point to this being that 'created' the universe? I didn't think so. You can only make inferences from subjective reasoning and experience. I'd rather stick to what is objectively reasonable and experiential.


Time is not of natural necessary existence, God created time and God exists outside of time. God may work within the world of time he created, himself being timeless, and not being "under the same auspices as we are". If time is not of natural necessary existence, which we can conclude if God did indeed create time, then even though time may be to us very real and what we base our lives around, what we seemingly can't live without, to God it is merely his creation.

[.13.]

Time is not of natural necessary existence, God created time and God exists outside of time. God may work within the world of time he created, himself being timeless, and not being "under the same auspices as we are". If time is not of natural necessary existence, which we can conclude if God did indeed create time, then even though time may be to us very real and what we base our lives around, what we seemingly can't live without, to God it is merely his creation.

Seems you haven't yet understood my point of making stuff up. I won't even try this time to make a subtle point by editing your post. I'll spell it out this time. Making stuff up makes this thread meaningles.

[Iacchus]

I have concluded that it makes sense for the universe to have a creator. I have therefore joined the Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912 sect. I have no logical alternative.Hell, I wouldn't.

[Taffer]

Well, there was this giant, a cow and some ice...

As a fan of Norse mythology, I take my hat off to you, sir. :D

[Iacchus]

Well, there was this giant, a cow and some ice...Paul Bunyun? :confused:

[Taffer]

Paul Bunyun? :confused:

Ginnungagap, Ymir and Auðumbla if I am not mistaken.

[BJQ87]

Seems you haven't yet understood my point of making stuff up. I won't even try this time to make a subtle point by editing your post. I'll spell it out this time. Making stuff up makes this thread meaningles.

Why don't you try and point out actual flaws in my argument instead of pointing out that its based on the assumption that God exists, no one needs you to point that out to them. There is such an argument such as "If God exists then..." i.e. the "problem of evil". Or maybe your so convinced of your belief that you think it would be too absurd to say "If God exists then..."

[Taffer]

Why don't you try and point out actual flaws in my argument instead of pointing out that its based on the assumption that God exists, no one needs you to point that out to them. There is such an argument such as "If God exists then..." i.e. the "problem of evil". Or maybe your so convinced of your belief that you think it would be too absurd to say "If God exists then..."

You know, you never answered my question in another thread as to why we should trust the word of God.

[BJQ87]

yea i did, you just didnt accept it apparently. Or are you asking for actual evidence instead of whatever reasons i can give you based upon my faith? If so then read "the case for christ" or something i'm no expert on apolagetics...if thats even how you spell it.

[Taffer]

yea i did, you just didnt accept it apparently. Or are you asking for actual evidence instead of whatever reasons i can give you based upon my faith? If so then read "the case for christ" or something i'm no expert on apolagetics...if thats even how you spell it.

Your "reason" was a passage from the Bible. Please provide non circular proof that the Bible can be trusted.

[.13.]

Why don't you try and point out actual flaws in my argument instead of pointing out that its based on the assumption that God exists, no one needs you to point that out to them. There is such an argument such as "If God exists then..." i.e. the "problem of evil". Or maybe your so convinced of your belief that you think it would be too absurd to say "If God exists then..."

Why would I bother with that when I could just make up more inane counter arguments? See where I'm going with this? This thread becomes meaningles when everyone just makes stuff up.

[BJQ87]

I say, the theory of evolution doesn't make sense because....and the theory of God makes sense because....i'm assuming you believe in neither then if you believe that every theory is made up.

[Taffer]

I say, the theory of evolution doesn't make sense because....and the theory of God makes sense because....i'm assuming you believe in neither then if you believe that every theory is made up.

Why doesn't the theory of evolution make sense? Why does the "theory of God" make sense? And please answer my question.

[BJQ87]

"made up" meaning based upon nothing, that is.

God is based upon the fact that God exists, if there were no one to worship him then the rocks would cry out. Your opinion that my belief in God is something based upon nothing is a theory that I have no relationship with God and cannot possibly recieve guidance and help, and any sort of unexplainable devine assurance.

"For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened. Or what man is there among you who, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone?"

Taffer- The simplest answer i can think of right now is that without Christ you are lost. The word of God is not contained in a book.

[Taffer]

"made up" meaning based upon nothing, that is.

God is based upon the fact that God exists, if there were no one to worship him then the rocks would cry out. Your opinion that my belief in God is something based upon nothing is a theory that I have no relationship with God and cannot possibly recieve guidance and help, and any sort of unexplainable devine assurance.

"For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened. Or what man is there among you who, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone?"

Taffer- The simplest answer i can think of right now is that without Christ you are lost. The word of God is not contained in a book.

So no evidence, then?

[BJQ87]

idk if you really want to see if theres evidence you can accept then read "the case for Christ" like i suggested, thats the only book i can think of that goes into actual evidence of why you should believe....or is supposed to...I haven't read it myself but i think its lying around here in my house somewhere, i think it was written by an atheist who turned christian after looking into the matter.

When I said the theory of evolution doesnt make sense because...and the theory of God makes sense because....i was referring to my argument from the last page on this thread.

[uruk]

First paragraph response: yes, I have no way of forming basis or position on this. Except with such an anology, and relying on other analogies where we can see that everything that we readily acknoledge to have a life cycle, has design within a seed. or, how we can look out at the workings of the universe and see that from the smallest to the largest; atom and galaxy (possibly the universe itself) orbits about some center...I would say that by me saying that the universe was also seeded would be quite a well-based intelligent guess. The problem with analogies is that you can get lost in them and misdirect yourself. Simply put, the universe is not a plant. There are many implications in the seed anlogy that do not have an analog to the universe. Any implications in refrence to the universe would remain very flimsy assumptions. You would need evidence to support them and the necessary evidence is, at the moment, unobtainable.

Second paragraph: I could argue that just because I feel you are posting to me right now, that in reality, perhaps you really don't exist, and are a figment of my imagination. A perfect and total illusion is indistinguishable from reality. It is irrelevent wether I actually exist or not. You have no choice but to relate to me as being real.

Third paragraph: All that are required are the proper conditions? Ha. Uhhhh, we all know THAT much, or else we wouldn't be here. It's in trying to ascertain just why those conditions happened or if they needed any kind of reason. I am of the school that I think there is as necessary of a reason as there was for you to have been seeded so that you can be alive here posting to me. All you have to go on is what you observe of the behaviours of those conditions. Our observation show us that the universe is far more complex than we first thought. There are many things about this universe which do not follow what we would consider "reason" or common sense. Any school of thought that is unsupported by observed evidence remains just an assumption.

Yo say there is no indication of an intelligent entity? How about if you held up 5 fingers and I told you that there is no indication that you are holding up 5 fingers. That is almost as ridiculous as you supposing all this needn't be seeded by any any design, yet by looking about, everything we see about us, that we DO understand, was indeed seeded with a blueprint

Your last paragraph: Wellllll...not quite a good example of our discussion, I don't think. It's not like *I* might say, "It's a rabbit", and you argue and say "it's a water vapor cloud". All anyone ever says about this is that the cloud looks like...has the shape of a bunny rabbit. Not that it's realy a bunny rabbit up there. Try to come up with some better analogy.
Where is your evidence to support this claim? You look about you and see that everything has a design and jump to a conclusion that there must be a designer. In essence you are saying that the universe "looks" like it had a creator. But quite frankly, looks are decieving. You have no evidence for the existance of this creator except to say that "well, we exist; everything looks like it has a design so therefore there must be a designer." But where is this designer? Where is the evidence to support the existance of this designer? Your just making an assumption based on your own personal views without any observable evidence to support that assumption. You look at the cloud and see the shape of a bunny rabbit whereas someone else sees something else. You make the claim with nothing to argue for it except that it just looks that way to you.

We look at the universe in the only way we know how, filtered through our personal experiance and preconceptions. When we look hard at the universe and try to leave those preconceptions aside the universe usually suprises us in very unexpected and inscrutable ways.

[uruk]

Time is not of natural necessary existence, God created time and God exists outside of time. God may work within the world of time he created, himself being timeless, and not being "under the same auspices as we are". If time is not of natural necessary existence, which we can conclude if God did indeed create time, then even though time may be to us very real and what we base our lives around, what we seemingly can't live without, to God it is merely his creation.
What was doing before he created time?
If god does something there is a sequecnce of events that take place as god is doing something. That IS time.
When god does one thing then another there is an interval which separates the two events. According to the bible it took seven days for god to create the earth. Even the bible says that god is subject to time.

God is subject to his own time just as we are subject to our own.

The creation of the universe marks a refrence for god. So there is now a separation of time before he created the universe and after he created the universe. If god never had a begining and has always existed then that means there is an infinite amount of time before he created the universe. Does that make sense? What was he doing for all that time before he created the universe?

[Iacchus]

What was doing before he created time?Living in the moment which, has always been.

[PatKelley]

"made up" meaning based upon nothing, that is.

God is based upon the fact that God exists, if there were no one to worship him then the rocks would cry out. Your opinion that my belief in God is something based upon nothing is a theory that I have no relationship with God and cannot possibly recieve guidance and help, and any sort of unexplainable devine assurance.

"For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened. Or what man is there among you who, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone?"

Taffer- The simplest answer i can think of right now is that without Christ you are lost. The word of God is not contained in a book.

Ever hear of the word "ineffable?" So now we have the Word of God not contained in a book, and the book proves God. So who do we trust? You? A book you admit you have not read yourself?

The step you cannot seem to get beyond is the what if of God.

I'll play the game, I'm not bored yet.

If God exists, and God is the creator of all, and not subject to the laws of God's creation, then the universe must be a sub-set of God.
Ergo the set of God {Good Evil Everything} How could that God be entirely good, if to make the universe, God must contain evil?

Alternately, if the Evil came from somewhere else, then God != Entire Universe, and God != omnipotent, which implies a limited God, who could therefore not have been responsible for creation.

Okay, so now we either have a God who is both good and evil or responsible for both, or a non-omnipotent God, who therefore could not have existed outside the universe, and must be constrained by natural laws.

[bagtaggar]

The biblical God demonstrates over and over again that he's running an amateur operation.

How could he let Satan into his project? How come he did such a crappy job convincing Satan to be on his side? Why did he do such a crappy job being a parent to Adam and Eve?

How could he let his project get so out of hand?

There's a thousand other issues that can be raised. The big question is, does this demonstrate some kind of profound plan that is so beyond human reasoning that it just seems like he's screwing up all the time? Or is it perchance that the whole thing is the fabrication of the human mind?

Why is this so difficult to swallow???

[uruk]

Living in the moment which, has always been.
If you can't dazzle them with diamonds...........

Which eternal moment was that? The eternal one before he created the universe or after?

[uruk]

How could he let Satan into his project? How come he did such a crappy job convincing Satan to be on his side? Why did he do such a crappy job being a parent to Adam and Eve? Not to mention that he's still holding a grudge over the rest of us for their screwup. How long can a diety hold a grude? Oh, right .....eternaly

[BJQ87]

Ever hear of the word "ineffable?" So now we have the Word of God not contained in a book, and the book proves God. So who do we trust? You? A book you admit you have not read yourself?


key word "contained"...to say the word of God is not contained in the bible does not mean that the bible is not the word of God.


Not to mention that he's still holding a grudge over the rest of us for their screwup.

An inherited screwup apparently. One you have ownership over. You blame your sin on someone else when it is yours?

[HeyLeroy]

One you have ownership over. You blame your sin on someone else when it is yours?
I was gonna say the devil made me do it.

Isn't that why the concept of Satan was invented? As a scapegoat for us when we didn't want to 'fess up to our bad doin's?

I was under the impression that the Jews didn't even have a concept of some sort of anti-god, but when they were enslaved by the Egyptians they incorporated the god Set into their belief system. Set became Satan. (Transformers: demons in disguise...)

[uruk]

An inherited screwup apparently. One you have ownership over. You blame your sin on someone else when it is yours? Why am I being blamed for Adam and Eve's sin? I did not eat the apple, did you? I was not born untill centuries later. And what's this about inherited sin? If your father comitted a crime why are you not also jailed for his transgressions?

[.13.]

God is based upon the fact that God exists, if there were no one to worship him then the rocks would cry out.

I see you are still struggling with my point.

Just stating personal opinions about existence of certain deities and what they may or may not have done seriously diminishes the value of this discussion. In context of this thread, I believe, one must be prepared to give evidence supporting one's statements.

[HeyLeroy]

Why am I being blamed for Adam and Eve's sin? I did not eat the apple, did you? I was not born untill centuries later. And what's this about inherited sin? If your father comitted a crime why are you not also jailed for his transgressions?


For the same reason god killed a bunch of first-borns because he was p!ssed at their parents (see the story of Passover): because the biblical god is psychotic.

[Taffer]

idk if you really want to see if theres evidence you can accept then read "the case for Christ" like i suggested, thats the only book i can think of that goes into actual evidence of why you should believe....or is supposed to...I haven't read it myself but i think its lying around here in my house somewhere, i think it was written by an atheist who turned christian after looking into the matter.

When I said the theory of evolution doesnt make sense because...and the theory of God makes sense because....i was referring to my argument from the last page on this thread.

I said "your evidence", not someone elses. If you have no such evidence, please just say so.

key word "contained"...to say the word of God is not contained in the bible does not mean that the bible is not the word of God.

How do we know the Bible is the word of God?

[bruto]

"made up" meaning based upon nothing, that is.

God is based upon the fact that God exists, if there were no one to worship him then the rocks would cry out.

Is that a local or global requirement? If we just shut off all the worship in, say New York, would that be enough to open up a few rocks? A global cooperative moratorium on worshiping God would be very hard to orchestrate, but think of the benefits! People could hold off for a couple of days at least. They could take a vacation from worshiping, and maybe during that time they wouldn't even have to slaughter each other for worshiping in the wrong way. With a little cooperation it would be an easy proposition to test. When those rocks cry out, I bet every atheist on this board will be on his knees.

If God is really out there, and really wants to be worshiped, don't you think he could send a better signal? I mean, this dude's supposed to be omnipotent! Look at all the millions of people who have been killed in his name because he's such a crappy communicator that he can't even keep Christians from bombing and burning each other over trivial doctrines. I'm sure there's always a "god's ways are ineffable and too complex for us to understand" copout at the ready, but it looks to me as if he's trifling with us for his own amusement, and I don't like it. It's a cheap trick, and real or not, I think old Jehovah is a sorry little tinpot demiurge and real or not he's not getting my business.

[bruto]

Where did you come from? Yes...YOU!

























From random chance thrown out by the benevolent universe? That's the chance and evolution argument, you know.

No, I don't know, since I believe your description of the evolution argument is erroneous. The unpredictable nature of genetic mutation does not make the entire process of evolution random at all, nor does it deprive us of choice in our own actions. As for the "benevolent universe," I went to an Episcopal secondary school, so I don't think that the teachers were particularly godless or atheistic, but nonetheless, one of the first things we learned to avoid in ninth grade science was teleology.

I, like Macduff, was from my mother's womb untimely ripp'd. Not begot by random chance, either, but, so I'm told, by planned parenthood. Since I was conceived and born in Connecticut, long before 1962, it was, of course illegal planned parenthood, thanks to the influence of Christianity on civil politics.

[Ducky]

Okay, I just got back from another thread. Quite the tease I am, AIN'T I. :)

Each and everyone of you came from a mommy and a daddy. And more exacting...each and every one of you came from a sperm and an egg.

What is a sperm and an egg. It is a blueprint! It is not random chance. There was a design forr YOUR life encoded by SOMEthing for you to be here!




After that mess of crap, I am fully convinced you did not come from a mother and a father, and were very much spawned of an unnatural relationship between a human and an eggplant.

[Tricky]

After that mess of crap, I am fully convinced you did not come from a mother and a father, and were very much spawned of an unnatural relationship between a human and an eggplant.
What's unnatural about that? Eggplant love is very beautiful and special.



Though most women I know prefer a zucchini.

[kmortis]

What's unnatural about that? Eggplant love is very beautiful and special.



Though most women I know prefer a zucchini.
She's gotta pickle to ride/She's gotta pickle to ri-ide/She's gotta pickle to ride, and she don't care (my baby don't care)

Or is that too over the top?

[Tricky]

She's gotta pickle to ride/She's gotta pickle to ri-ide/She's gotta pickle to ride, and she don't care (my baby don't care)

Or is that too over the top?

Definately.

Encore

[kmortis]

Definately.

Encore

That's from my new album, out just in time for Festivus, KMortis sings Dr. Dirty's Greatest Hits.

[PatKelley]

key word "contained"...to say the word of God is not contained in the bible does not mean that the bible is not the word of God.


So no addressing of my other arguments about the set of God containing the universe and evil, or not and not being the ultimate creator?

[bruto]

Each and everyone of you came from a mommy and a daddy. And more exacting...each and every one of you came from a sperm and an egg.

What is a sperm and an egg. It is a blueprint! It is not random chance. There was a design forr YOUR life encoded by SOMEthing for you to be here!

I just threw a pair of dice. Wow! I got a number, and what's more, it's the sum of the two on the dice I threw! That couldn't happen by chance. It must be intelligent design.

[Ducky]

What's unnatural about that? Eggplant love is very beautiful and special.



Though most women I know prefer a zucchini.


I was thinking it was a man and an eggplant, but ok we'll go with your interpretation ;)

[kmortis]

I just threw a pair of dice. Wow! I got a number, and what's more, it's the sum of the two on the dice I threw! That couldn't happen by chance. It must be intelligent design.

Bruto,
COuld you hand me the dice back? Fowlsound and I were right in the middle of a game of craps.

[Hawk one]

An inherited screwup apparently. One you have ownership over. You blame your sin on someone else when it is yours?

Oh hey, look here! (http://freethought.mbdojo.com/absurdityofsin.html) An article that shows how the Christian concept of sin is completely absurd. Gee, what a surprise.

Or to shorten it down to one sentence: How on earth can I claim ownership of a sin that supposedly happened when I didn't even exist? Just because some psychopathic deity tells me to do so? Shyah right. Any deity telling me that I share the sin of Adam and Eve just because it wants me to turn to it for salvation can go f**k itself.

[ruach1]

Oh hey, look here! (http://freethought.mbdojo.com/absurdityofsin.html) An article that shows how the Christian concept of sin is completely absurd. Gee, what a surprise.

Or to shorten it down to one sentence: How on earth can I claim ownership of a sin that supposedly happened when I didn't even exist? Just because some psychopathic deity tells me to do so? Shyah right. Any deity telling me that I share the sin of Adam and Eve just because it wants me to turn to it for salvation can go f**k itself.

If Christianity really were a "gilded mansion built on a foundation of sand," (as per referenced article), then why hasn't it fallen yet?--especially when traditional, total literal biblical interpretation has become antiquated due to the advancement of human thought?

Answer: Because there is something to the faith of Abraham that transcends what we perceive as being wrong about it. Yes there are (seeming) contradictions, anachronisms, inaccuracies, and misalignments in Scripture, and these things cannot be denied. However, there is an aspect to the faith that transcends Scripture. That thing is the presence, sense, and contact with that whom we call God. The presence of God which, by all accounts, is attested to in Scripture, is the ingredient which makes the gilded mansion of Christianity stand, not only now, but for ages to come. Scripture is not God, and faith is not based on Scripture--it is based on God. Scripture is the finger pointing to God--not the subject of its own indication.

[Hawk one]

If Christianity really were a "gilded mansion built on a foundation of sand," (as per referenced article), then why hasn't it fallen yet?--especially when traditional, total literal biblical interpretation has become antiquated due to the advancement of human thought?

If Christianity is the one true religion, then why does Buddhism, Hinduism, and other religions survive?

Since homeopathy is a complete fraud, that does nothing to treat diseases, why does it survive?

If the Flying Spagetti Monster isn't real, how could His Noodly Appendages not inspire us to write letters to the Education Board of Kansas about His Greatness?

If Lord of The Rings is nothing but a story, why are people actually learning to speak Quenya (the Elvish language)?


The real answer to your question is fear: People fear death, and Christianity (and other religions) soothes the fear by saying there's an afterlife.


The "presence" of God in the Bible isn't a very good way of soothing it, though. The only proper image that book gives is that of a psychopathic father that beats his children and locks them in the cellar whenever they've done something He deems wrong. And then He beats his children for something that the neigbour kids did. Because his own kids supposedly shared this sin for no other reason than that they're both kids.

Gee, what an @$$hole. If God actually exists, who died and let such a pathetic, creature in charge is what I'm wondering.

But be that as it may. Trying to excuse all the horribleness God supposedly did in the old testament by saying it's not for us to understand is just a cheap cop-out anyway. It makes much more sense when you look at the bible, see it as a work of men living in a time when they knew so much less about this world. All the contradictions (and there are very real contradictions in it, have no doubt) makes perfect sense if you're just realising there were just a bunch of men writing stuff. And another bunch of men editing the works a long time afterwards.

P.S. You never showed any evidence for God's existance. The scriptures makes claims about god's presence, but none of these claims have ever been confirmed objectively. I've seen similar claims about how "the presence" of homeopathic cures is inside those sugar pills they sell, but that doesn't make it any more true, does it?

P.P.S. You also never answered my question: How can I logically be held responsible for a sin that supposedly happened at a time when I didn't even exist?

[ruach1]

[QUOTE=Hawk one;1266484]If Christianity is the one true religion, then why does Buddhism, Hinduism, and other religions survive?

Since homeopathy is a complete fraud, that does nothing to treat diseases, why does it survive?

If the Flying Spagetti Monster isn't real, how could His Noodly Appendages not inspire us to write letters to the Education Board of Kansas about His Greatness?

If Lord of The Rings is nothing but a story, why are people actually learning to speak Quenya (the Elvish language)?

Too immature here...


The real answer to your question is fear: People fear death, and Christianity (and other religions) soothes the fear by saying there's an afterlife.

This is a good answer to the question, but it is only one. Christianity does adequately ameliorate this existential nightmare quite well--but only when you take to heart the love of God. However, there are other answers to why Christianity has survived the ages. One of them is, as I wrote before, the very real sense and presence of God as Christians understand God to be: Father, Son, Holy Spirit.

The only proper image that book gives is that of a psychopathic father that beats his children and locks them in the cellar whenever they've done something He deems wrong. And then He beats his children for something that the neigbour kids did. Because his own kids supposedly shared this sin for no other reason than that they're both kids.

Too painful here for me... Sorry H1, but it seems as if you have issues with which you may need help.


But be that as it may. Trying to excuse all the horribleness God supposedly did in the old testament by saying it's not for us to understand is just a cheap cop-out anyway. It makes much more sense when you look at the bible, see it as a work of men living in a time when they knew so much less about this world. All the contradictions (and there are very real contradictions in it, have no doubt) makes perfect sense if you're just realising there were just a bunch of men writing stuff. And another bunch of men editing the works a long time afterwards.
In my oppinion, this is closer to the truth than most people think. However, there is more going on in the history of the ancient Israelites than all that warring and killing as described (and even sanctioned) in the OT.


P.S. You never showed any evidence for God's existance. The scriptures makes claims about god's presence, but none of these claims have ever been confirmed objectively. I've seen similar claims about how "the presence" of homeopathic cures is inside those sugar pills they sell, but that doesn't make it any more true, does it?

One cannot show evidence for the existence of God on an internet forum. Homeopathy and Christian theology are not linked.

P.P.S. You also never answered my question: How can I logically be held responsible for a sin that supposedly happened at a time when I didn't even exist?

There are many more facets to the problem of sin than direct culpability. One of them is cause and effect and intergenerational sin. For example, if someone's father beats his kid then that kid, when he grows up, beats his kid then the grandfather would be guilty of corrupting the grandson even if they never were in direct contact. By this example of cause and effect, "sin" is being passed down because "sin" has a way of spreading beyond the initial act. This is one aspect of the story of Gen 3. Somehow we all suffer because long before us people violated "someones" conception of right and wrong and that violation is still in motion, by cause and effect, right up to this very second. I do wrong, you do wrong, they do wrong (whoever they are) because "wrong" has been so established in this world by the people before us such that we do "wrong" because "doing wrong" is now the natural order of things. You are not responsible for what other people did. But we are influenced by what other people have done, and we are no more innocent than the people before or after us because they are as much a part of a "doing wrong" world as we are. Thus everything is connected.

[Taffer]

Great post, Hawk One mate. :)

[Hawk one]

Too immature here...



OK, I'll just leave you with one of the questions: Homeopathy has been proven with quite extensive evidence to be a fraud. Why do people still believe in a known fraud? This is no more immature than your original question.

This is a good answer to the question, but it is only one. Christianity does adequately ameliorate this existential nightmare quite well--but only when you take to heart the love of God. However, there are other answers to why Christianity has survived the ages. One of them is, as I wrote before, the very real sense and presence of God as Christians understand God to be: Father, Son, Holy Spirit.

OK, other answers include: "Some people still don't have much clue on what is really going on this universe, so they turn to the god of the gaps at every convenient". Or simply this fact: Lots of people are gullible. As the popularity of homeopathy should show you.

Your answer is assuming the existance of something that has yet to be shown to exist in an objective manner, therefore it's no answer at all.

Too painful here for me... Sorry H1, but it seems as if you have issues with which you may need help.
If you have problems with an accurate descriptive analogy of what God is doing (especially in the old testament), then perhaps you should start wonder if it's really a good source to turn into for spiritual enlightenment.

In my oppinion, this is closer to the truth than most people think. However, there is more going on in the history of the ancient Israelites than all that warring and killing as described (and even sanctioned) in the OT.
Sure the OT contains other stuff as well. Even stuff about God doing some nice miracles and whatnot. Which is like said psychopathic father buying his children ice cream the day after having given them a horrible beating, and asking them to pretend the beating never happened, and that the kids should still love him.

One cannot show evidence for the existence of God on an internet forum. Homeopathy and Christian theology are not linked.

Anything you have objective evidence for, you can show on an internet forum. And Christianity has made lots of claims that, like homeopathy, has been disproven.

You can make no demands on me.
No, but I can see that you're either uncapable or unwilling to answer my question. I can think of several reasons for this, but so far, I'll only note that you did in fact dodge it, so I will ask again: What is the logical reason for me having to take on responsibility of a supposed sin that supposedly happened thousands of years before I existed? Feel free to answer or not at your leisure, as long as you're aware of the consequences of dodging the question.

[.13.]

If Christianity really were a "gilded mansion built on a foundation of sand," (as per referenced article), then why hasn't it fallen yet?--especially when traditional, total literal biblical interpretation has become antiquated due to the advancement of human thought?

Hawk said the fear of death. I agree. I'll just add that in history it was also fear of the church itself that kept people in line. Prospect of getting tortured by inquisitors will put the fear of the church in your mind. After inquisitions were over there was still the likely chance to get shunned by your peers if you rejected the church.

And ofcourse the church might do some nasty things to you even if not torture. If you had lands or wealth, you might loose it. The church had considerable political and financial power. Even kings were forced to consider the that power. If you were going to cross the pope you'd better have considerable power of your own, military and otherwise. Though at some point there were puppet popes for earthly rulers. But it was them who then wielded the power of the church over their subjects and other rulers. So it made little difference who was ultimately pulling the strings.

In modern days the church is still wealthy but has a limited financial influence. Political influence is still considerable. So inconclusion I don't see why any divine intervention would have been necessary for maintaining the establishment.

[ruach1]

Feel free to answer or not at your leisure, as long as you're aware of the consequences of dodging the question.

And these consequences you speak of?

[uruk]

[QUOTE]
There are many more facets to the problem of sin than direct culpability. One of them is cause and effect and intergenerational sin. For example, if someone's father beats his kid then that kid, when he grows up, beats his kid then the grandfather would be guilty of corrupting the grandson even if they never were in direct contact. By this example of cause and effect, "sin" is being passed down because "sin" has a way of spreading beyond the initial act. This is one aspect of the story of Gen 3. Somehow we all suffer because long before us people violated "someones" conception of right and wrong and that violation is still in motion, by cause and effect, right up to this very second. I do wrong, you do wrong, they do wrong (whoever they are) because "wrong" has been so established in this world by the people before us such that we do "wrong" because "doing wrong" is now the natural order of things. You are not responsible for what other people did. But we are influenced by what other people have done, and we are no more innocent than the people before or after us because they are as much a part of a "doing wrong" world as we are. Thus everything is connected.
There is difference between the generational "sin" of child abuse (a loose interpretation of sin) and the defiance of god's wishes committed by Adam and Eve. The abuse is a pathalogical one. A system of reinforced behaviour were the one who is doing the abusing may or may not be aware of comitting a "sin". Most abusers do not feel that they are doing wrong. Thier impaired or distorted thought processes allows them to think that the victim caused and is deserving of the abuse. And in the case of the victim/abuser the abuse they comitt is usually done without premeditated comittal of a "sin" but instead is a learned behaiviour. A response that is natural for a givin situation.

The sin Adam and Eve comitted was done intentionaly. God told them not to eat the fruit. The eating of the forbidden fruit was not a systematically learned behaviour. Additionaly they were tempted by the serpent/satan into comitting the sin. (one has to wonder why an all knowing god alowed the serpent into the garden to tempt Adam and Eve unless he intented them to be tempted) Even so. A god who esposes forgiveness does not forgive Adam and Eve's trangression (even though he may have been responsible for the temptation in the first place). When your child disobeys you, do you not admonish then forgive them? Or do you banish them from your house and make them suffer?

So we are still guilty of a sin we have no idea that we are comitting. And what would this unitentional sin be?

[.13.]

[QUOTE]
For example, if someone's father beats his kid then that kid, when he grows up, beats his kid then the grandfather would be guilty of corrupting the grandson even if they never were in direct contact. By this example of cause and effect, "sin" is being passed down because "sin" has a way of spreading beyond the initial act.

In that example they are not responsible for their parents actions but their own. If they didn't carry on the tradition of beating (sin) would they still be responsible for it?

You are not responsible for what other people did. But we are influenced by what other people have done, and we are no more innocent than the people before or after us because they are as much a part of a "doing wrong" world as we are. Thus everything is connected.

You are contradictin yourself here.

[bruto]

Iamme, I am continually surprised by your posts. Sometimes you seem like an ordinary, reasonably intelligent and thoughtful person, and at other times, you reveal a level of ignorance and misinformation that is utterly baffling. I do not mean this as an insult to your intelligence, but I really wonder where you are getting your information, or where you got your education.

By what possible stretch of the imagination can you infer that the basic fact that parents pass on their genetic heritage defies evolution, or any other scientific principle? What do you think that the theory of natural selection actually says?

I keep hearing this argument from creationists, that somehow the idea that mutations occur "randomly" (just to avoid more arguments on this from some, the common usage of this term in this context means unpredictably at the individual mutation level but predictably as to distribution, and is not a metaphysical term) means that god must be at work to prevent human parents from having wombats or octopi for offspring, or that the fact that you can't drop a pile of scrap metal on the ground and have it turn into a watch somehow disproves evolution.

I do wish that you would read up a little on the subject of natural selection, and perhaps a little also about the subjects of complexity and convergence, so that you will know what you are talking about. You may still come up disagreeing with it, but your posts will be more interesting if you attack things that are actually there.

[Hawk one]

And these consequences you speak of?

Fair enough, I should have stated those. It's nothing life-threatening or forum-banning or stuff like that. It's "only" that for each time you dodge a relevant question about sin, people will read your post and probably come to the conclusion that you aren't arguing honestly. Then they will stop taking your claims seriously, and plainly stop listening to you.

That is all, nothing that can be considered a threat. Of course, if you're interested in a rational discussion, and that people will listen to you, you ought to take such consequences seriously enough. Just a free tip.

[Belz...]

Okay, I just got back from another thread. Quite the tease I am, AIN'T I. :)

Each and everyone of you came from a mommy and a daddy. And more exacting...each and every one of you came from a sperm and an egg.

What is a sperm and an egg. It is a blueprint! It is not random chance. There was a design forr YOUR life encoded by SOMEthing for you to be here!

So now, let's look once again at the universe and how IT got here. So you believe it all just happened eh? No plan or design. No blueprint. Uh huh! Yet we know that WE reeeaaaaly didn't just get here without our OWN blueprint.

No folks. The universe and all it contains came itSELF from something that was akin to a seed, which had the blueprint for everything in existance, blueprinted into it. You can call the author of that initial blueprint, God!

Now it's just a matter of whether or not you believe blueprints simply come from nothing. And it says in the Bible that 'only the fool believes there is no God'. For years, from the age of 14 to the age of into my late 40's or more, I too thought the way the bulk of you guys/gals do. Now I am starting to realize the error of my ways, and I am trying to make it right now, with the Lord Almighty.

I see words, but no argument. What is this suppose to prove ?

[Belz...]

Oh nooooo. No THAT argument again. The old 'where did God come from then', trick. Spare me. Please. I have explained that. Okay. Here we go again. God did not need to be seeded himself. He is the 'conglomerate' of all in existance. He is both the begining and the end. He is both the complex and the simple. He is the hot and cold. The loving and the angry. He is the entire ball of wax in one. He didn't need to be seeded because he is where the buck stops.

How is that different from our theory... without the God ?

[Belz...]

The raindrop is not the reason for the raincloud, however much the raindrop wishes it to be so.

Nice.

[kmortis]

How is that different from our theory... without the God ?

Well, it's gotta god, duddinit?

[Belz...]

If Christianity really were a "gilded mansion built on a foundation of sand," (as per referenced article), then why hasn't it fallen yet [...] Answer: Because there is something to the faith of Abraham that transcends what we perceive as being wrong about it. Yes there are (seeming) contradictions, anachronisms, inaccuracies, and misalignments in Scripture, and these things cannot be denied. However, there is an aspect to the faith that transcends Scripture.

Argumentum ad persistance. That'll work.

[PatKelley]

There are many more facets to the problem of sin than direct culpability. One of them is cause and effect and intergenerational sin. For example, if someone's father beats his kid then that kid, when he grows up, beats his kid then the grandfather would be guilty of corrupting the grandson even if they never were in direct contact. By this example of cause and effect, "sin" is being passed down because "sin" has a way of spreading beyond the initial act. This is one aspect of the story of Gen 3. Somehow we all suffer because long before us people violated "someones" conception of right and wrong and that violation is still in motion, by cause and effect, right up to this very second. I do wrong, you do wrong, they do wrong (whoever they are) because "wrong" has been so established in this world by the people before us such that we do "wrong" because "doing wrong" is now the natural order of things. You are not responsible for what other people did. But we are influenced by what other people have done, and we are no more innocent than the people before or after us because they are as much a part of a "doing wrong" world as we are. Thus everything is connected.

Wow. So I'm not responsible, ever, and God (through creation) introduced sin, so it's only logical that he should be the one to take it back, eh? Some gift! We were all so led to believe that here he was making this great sacrifice, when all he was really doing was trying to blot out a mistake of his own.

Good thing I know all of this now. Because, well, my father was beaten until he was bloody several times. He hit me comparatively few, and I have yet to strike my son in anger. Guess sin just fades over time?

[bruto]

[QUOTE]

This is a good answer to the question, but it is only one. Christianity does adequately ameliorate this existential nightmare quite well--but only when you take to heart the love of God. However, there are other answers to why Christianity has survived the ages. One of them is, as I wrote before, the very real sense and presence of God as Christians understand God to be: Father, Son, Holy Spirit.

Any faith, strongly enough held, will ameliorate your existential nightmare. It need not be true, and the amelioration is not proof of its truth, only of its ability to give you comfort. It may well be worthwhile on those grounds, but that's a different argument.

One cannot show evidence for the existence of God on an internet forum. Homeopathy and Christian theology are not linked.

That was not the point of the example. You argued that Christianity is shown as valid or worthwhile because of its persistence. The example of homeopathy and other ideas is simply a demonstration that persistence does not guarantee validity.

There are many more facets to the problem of sin than direct culpability. One of them is cause and effect and intergenerational sin. For example, if someone's father beats his kid then that kid, when he grows up, beats his kid then the grandfather would be guilty of corrupting the grandson even if they never were in direct contact. By this example of cause and effect, "sin" is being passed down because "sin" has a way of spreading beyond the initial act. This is one aspect of the story of Gen 3. Somehow we all suffer because long before us people violated "someones" conception of right and wrong and that violation is still in motion, by cause and effect, right up to this very second. I do wrong, you do wrong, they do wrong (whoever they are) because "wrong" has been so established in this world by the people before us such that we do "wrong" because "doing wrong" is now the natural order of things. You are not responsible for what other people did. But we are influenced by what other people have done, and we are no more innocent than the people before or after us because they are as much a part of a "doing wrong" world as we are. Thus everything is connected.

That's an odd interpretation of original sin. Granted, the idea of original sin is pretty bizarre to begin with, and I'll confess I have not kept up with all the wacko sects out there, but no religious doctrine I've ever seen suggests that we are sinners because those around us are sinning, or because the world around us is sinful. Original sin is original and individual. You're either born with it, or not. You carry it until you get rid of it by divine grace. Your interpretation implies that a non-believer could be absolved of original sin through the atonement of his neighbors, or that a true believer will be damned by the actions of the rest of society. Sin is not a status crime. You're not a sinner because its expected of you. You sin when you sin and you don't when you don't. The exeption, original sin, is considered a starting deficit, a red entry in the ledger the moment you're born, implicit in the human condition, like painful childbirth and death itself, whatever the condition of the society around you. I've never seen any suggestion that if society at large were to become sinless, we would find ourselves unburdened of original sin without further action on our own part. Catholics believe in original sin, but also in free will. You seem to be suggesting that the "repetition compulstion" of a sin such as child beating trumps free will. Are you actually saying that the grandson is guilty of his grandfather's particular sin even if he chooses not to repeat it?

[ruach1]

Fair enough, I should have stated those. It's nothing life-threatening or forum-banning or stuff like that. It's "only" that for each time you dodge a relevant question about sin, people will read your post and probably come to the conclusion that you aren't arguing honestly. Then they will stop taking your claims seriously, and plainly stop listening to you.

That is all, nothing that can be considered a threat. Of course, if you're interested in a rational discussion, and that people will listen to you, you ought to take such consequences seriously enough. Just a free tip.

Yes, I agree. I hadn't thought of the above before. If I did dodge questions, eventually forum members would see, few would take me seriously, and writing on the forum would eventually become less worthwhile. Got it; free tip received in good spirit. :)

[joesson]

Hello all.

Just curious on what the discussion is in here.


:beerflag:

[ruach1]

Any faith, strongly enough held, will ameliorate your existential nightmare. It need not be true, and the amelioration is not proof of its truth, only of its ability to give you comfort. It may well be worthwhile on those grounds, but that's a different argument.
Any faith? I am not certain that any faith will ameliorate the said fear of non-existence as well as Christianity. In fact one can argue that those faiths (religious or otherwise) that do not promise a favorable life after the death of the body, due to faith, do quite the opposite.

That was not the point of the example. You argued that Christianity is shown as valid or worthwhile because of its persistence. The example of homeopathy and other ideas is simply a demonstration that persistence does not guarantee validity.
I said there is something within the faith that makes it able to last as more than a gilded mansion built on sand. If it were only that which you have validated--the amelioration of the existential nightmare--then that, in itself, would be well worthwhile--especially if one has ever experienced an existential crisis. But I didn't say just that (or simply persistence) because that is not the only aspect of Christianity that is worthwhile. I said that through faith, one can have an experience of God to which I would add the experience is felt as Spirit, as Love, as the person of the Christ--all the same. To one who has experienced this Love--despite the evident harshness in the OT, despite the harshness of this world, despite sin as however we see it, despite the failings of the people of faith--the experience, transcendent and wonderful as it is, validates the veracity of the faith as well as the Grace of God. I am sorry, so, so sorry I cannot prove this experience here and now. I just can't, and I'm not going to pretend I can or feel a failure to all readers because I can't. It would be so very easy if faith were a matter of finding the pertinent postulate or theorem, but proving Love is not possible--either it is experienced or it isn't.

That's an odd interpretation of original sin. Granted, the idea of original sin is pretty bizarre to begin with, and I'll confess I have not kept up with all the wacko sects out there, but no religious doctrine I've ever seen suggests that we are sinners because those around us are sinning, or because the world around us is sinful. Original sin is original and individual. You're either born with it, or not. You carry it until you get rid of it by divine grace. Your interpretation implies that a non-believer could be absolved of original sin through the atonement of his neighbors, or that a true believer will be damned by the actions of the rest of society. Sin is not a status crime. You're not a sinner because its expected of you. You sin when you sin and you don't when you don't. The exeption, original sin, is considered a starting deficit, a red entry in the ledger the moment you're born, implicit in the human condition, like painful childbirth and death itself, whatever the condition of the society around you. I've never seen any suggestion that if society at large were to become sinless, we would find ourselves unburdened of original sin without further action on our own part. Catholics believe in original sin, but also in free will. You seem to be suggesting that the "repetition compulstion" of a sin such as child beating trumps free will. Are you actually saying that the grandson is guilty of his grandfather's particular sin even if he chooses not to repeat it?

The problem of sin is one Gordian Knot of a situation, and I do not have an Alexandrian sword to cut it. One knot seemingly untied reveals more knots beneath it more difficult--kinda' like that Hydra thing. Anyway, I do not have the time to address all of the "knots" this subject can bring up. (Copping out? Maybe. But I really don't have the time.) However, I can say that I believe the Genesis story of the Fall of Man (and Woman) is purposely open-ended because of the complex nature of the problem of sin. Turning it over and over (as may have been the intention of the authors and redactors) like a Rubic's Cube may be interesting to some, a nightmare to others, and pointless to still others. But addressing the story is something many people do--believer or non-believer. Hopefully some good may come out of it for all.

[UrsulaV]

Any faith? I am not certain that any faith will ameliorate the said fear of non-existence as well as Christianity. In fact one can argue that those faiths (religious or otherwise) that do not promise a favorable life after the death of the body, due to faith, do quite the opposite.


I suppose you consider hell a "favorable life after the death of the body," then?

I've known a fair number of people absolutely tormented by fear of hell, and one can hardly move for hearing stories of those who did quite bad things to their children in the name of saving them from hell.

I'd be inclined to argue that a faith that didn't include such a morbid boogyland would be a lot better at ameliorating the fear of nonexistance, since it wouldn't just replace it with fear of a nasty eternity. My own experience is that my existential angst was far better relieved when I believed in reincarnation than in Christianity.

But so what? LSD is a terrible effective hallucinogen, but that doesn't mean that walls are REALLY breathing. The fact that Christianity may be good at relieving angst hardly makes it true--at best it may make it a sort of existential anesthetic.

[Tricky]

Yes, I agree. I hadn't thought of the above before. If I did dodge questions, eventually forum members would see, few would take me seriously, and writing on the forum would eventually become less worthwhile. Got it; free tip received in good spirit. :)
Good. Glad you see it. We have had quite a few intelligent religious people here. LukeT is one, though he rarely joins the R&P boards. There was once a fellow called Potato Stew (you could probably find a few of his old posts) who always answered questions to the best of his ability, and without dodging. Those kinds of people really do get respect here, though I won't pretend that they are not put on the defensive a lot.

So I hope you'll get back to answering those questions straightforwardly, such as the one about why God is so often depicted as a psychopath in the bible (especially in the Old Testiment), and why it would be good to follow such a god. If you do, I think people are more likely to play nice with you.

[ruach1]

Good. Glad you see it. We have had quite a few intelligent religious people here. LukeT is one, though he rarely joins the R&P boards. There was once a fellow called Potato Stew (you could probably find a few of his old posts) who always answered questions to the best of his ability, and without dodging. Those kinds of people really do get respect here, though I won't pretend that they are not put on the defensive a lot.

So I hope you'll get back to answering those questions straightforwardly, such as the one about why God is so often depicted as a psychopath in the bible (especially in the Old Testiment), and why it would be good to follow such a god. If you do, I think people are more likely to play nice with you.
Psychopath, eh? Psychopath... hmm...

If you/we were living in the Levant @2000 B.C., would the OT depiction of God seem psychopathic? Or would it make perfect sense in regard to the world back then?

We've come a long way since then, you say? So do I, and the depiction and understanding of God has as well: "God is love, and when you live in love, you live in God." I John 4

[Ducky]

Psychopath, eh? Psychopath... hmm...

If you/we were living in the Levant @2000 B.C., would the OT depiction of God seem psychopathic? Or would it make perfect sense in regard to the world back then?

We've come a long way since then, you say? So do I, and the depiction and understanding of God has as well: "God is love, and when you live in love, you live in God." I John 4


You do realize the problem with quoting a 2000 year old scripture to support how far we've come in the understanding of God 2000 years later?


edited to clarify.

[ruach1]

I suppose you consider hell a "favorable life after the death of the body," then?
No. No I don't.

I've known a fair number of people absolutely tormented by fear of hell, and one can hardly move for hearing stories of those who did quite bad things to their children in the name of saving them from hell.
Yes this makes me sad and angry. I have seen Carrie enough to know this stuff takes place all too often. Makes me sick... :(

I'd be inclined to argue that a faith that didn't include such a morbid boogyland would be a lot better at ameliorating the fear of nonexistance, since it wouldn't just replace it with fear of a nasty eternity. My own experience is that my existential angst was far better relieved when I believed in reincarnation than in Christianity.
There's that dualism/duality thing again. Its hard to understand heaven without hell. Yet with the Love of God, one can easily understand how heaven can exist without hell.
But so what? LSD is a terrible effective hallucinogen, but that doesn't mean that walls are REALLY breathing. The fact that Christianity may be good at relieving angst hardly makes it true--at best it may make it a sort of existential anesthetic.
Yes, but have you really tried it? How can you tell its effect if you haven't really tried it?

[Ducky]

[QUOTE]
[QUOTE]No. No I don't.


Yes this makes me sad and angry. I have seen enough to know this stuff takes place all to often. Makes me sick...


There's that dualism/duality thing again. Its hard to understand heaven without hell. Yet with the Love of God, one can easily understand how heaven can exist without hell.

Yes, but have you really tried it? How can you tell its effect if you haven't tried it?

You are saying the movie Carrie is plausible? Not even Stephen King says that.

As for the "Have you tried it?" An appeal to authority isn't going to get you far.

[Belz...]

I said that through faith, one can have an experience of God to which I would add the experience is felt as Spirit, as Love, as the person of the Christ--all the same. To one who has experienced this Love--despite the evident harshness in the OT, despite the harshness of this world, despite sin as however we see it, despite the failings of the people of faith--the experience, transcendent and wonderful as it is, validates the veracity of the faith as well as the Grace of God.

You got it all wrong. God knows that he's an evil bastard. Of course, he wants you to believe in him, but he sees that society today wouldn't agree with what he did in the past. So, obviously, he tries to "feel" good and benevolent so as to convince you that he's looking after your best interest.

However, I can say that I believe the Genesis story of the Fall of Man (and Woman) is purposely open-ended because of the complex nature of the problem of sin.

Is it ? Sin is, plain and simple, doing things that are against God's commands. How hard can this be ?

[.13.]

Psychopath, eh? Psychopath... hmm...

If you/we were living in the Levant @2000 B.C., would the OT depiction of God seem psychopathic? Or would it make perfect sense in regard to the world back then?

We've come a long way since then, you say? So do I, and the depiction and understanding of God has as well: "God is love, and when you live in love, you live in God." I John 4

You say that the old testament is a product of its time written by men? They made god according to their moral standards? So it is unsuitable as a moral guideline for modern times. Are you implying that?

Why should we trust the new testament more? Isn't it just a product of men 2000 years ago and their moral code?

[ruach1]

You do realize the problem with quoting a 2000 year old scripture to reflect how far we've come in the 2000 years since?
Hey thanks for pointing this out! On the one hand you're absolutely right; there is a logical problem there. On the other hand, I really am feeling the expression that "God is Love" is the (eternal) present though it was clearly written two thousand years ago.

Wow... I think I just experienced something like a spiritual time warp.
Felt good...

[Ducky]

Hey thanks for pointing this out! On the one hand you're absolutely right; there is a logical problem there. On the other hand, I really am feeling the expression that "God is Love" is the (eternal) present though it was clearly written two thousand years ago.

Wow... I think I just experienced something like a spiritual time warp.
Felt good...


So what you're saying is that God is not logical?

[Belz...]

Psychopath, eh? Psychopath... hmm...

If you/we were living in the Levant @2000 B.C., would the OT depiction of God seem psychopathic? Or would it make perfect sense in regard to the world back then?

We've come a long way since then, you say? So do I, and the depiction and understanding of God has as well: "God is love, and when you live in love, you live in God." I John 4

I thought God is immutable. How would his standards of morality change over the centuries ? At best, that makes him an opportunist.

[Belz...]

Yes, but have you really tried it? How can you tell its effect if you haven't really tried it?

Objective consensus. I don't need to try drugs to know what it does. Scientists and doctors can tell me this.

[Belz...]

Hey thanks for pointing this out! On the one hand you're absolutely right; there is a logical problem there. On the other hand, I really am feeling the expression that "God is Love" is the (eternal) present though it was clearly written two thousand years ago.

Wow... I think I just experienced something like a spiritual time warp.
Felt good...

I know a girl who "feels" she can see auras. Does that make it true ?

[Ducky]

Objective consensus. I don't need to try drugs to know what it does. Scientists and doctors can tell me this.


I just pictured in my head someone sitting in a doc's office as he dryly explains the LSD trip.

That amused me. ;)


You are correct, however, we don't need to be Christian to understand Christianity.

[ruach1]

[QUOTE]You say that the old testament is a product of its time written by men? They made god according to their moral standards? So it is unsuitable as a moral guideline for modern times. Are you implying that?
The authors of the OT did not make God. I see the experience of God as being filtered through men and written of as Scripture. They saw and understood God in the way they did relative to their time. There are things in the OT that are unsuitable for modern times like stoning adulterers and so on. However there are other things in the OT like "do not murder" and so on which are applicable for all times.

Why should we trust the new testament more?

Love God.
Love your neighber as yourself.
God is Love, and when you live in Love you live in God.

I can find no argument against Love, and despite the failings and imperfections of Scripture and the faithful, still, God is Love. :)

[Belz...]

You are correct, however, we don't need to be Christian to understand Christianity.

Well, if we couldn't understand things through other people, we'd be left with HypnoPsi's position, because all we could trust would be our own experience.

[Ducky]

[QUOTE=.13.;1268032]
The authors of the OT did not make God. I see the experience of God as being filtered through men and written of as Scripture. They saw and understood God in the way they did relative to their time. There are things in the OT that are unsuitable for modern times like stoning adulterers and so on. However there are other things in the OT like "do not murder" and so on which are applicable for all times.



Love God.
Love your neighber as yourself.
God is Love, and when you live in Love you live in God.

I can find no argument against Love, and despite the failings and imperfections of Scripture and the faithful, still, God is Love. :)


Yet in the OT God orders murder. How can this be rectified against the commandment not to kill? How can that be love?

[bruto]

Any faith? I am not certain that any faith will ameliorate the said fear of non-existence as well as Christianity. In fact one can argue that those faiths (religious or otherwise) that do not promise a favorable life after the death of the body, due to faith, do quite the opposite.

I don't see why a favorable life after death is necessary to ameliorate existential fear myself. I am more concerned with making the existence I now enjoy worthwhile than with banking for the next. However, I know others don't share my nonchalance about that, and their existential issues appear to be well served by several religions, of which Christianity is one. I was brought up Christian, and have a residual fondness for it, as well as a cultural bias. But Moonies, Jehovah's Witnesses, the Jonestown cult, Islamic suicide bombers, theosophists, the Taliban - all are very well comforted by the promises of their religions. I don't think they can all be right.


I said there is something within the faith that makes it able to last as more than a gilded mansion built on sand. If it were only that which you have validated--the amelioration of the existential nightmare--then that, in itself, would be well worthwhile--especially if one has ever experienced an existential crisis. But I didn't say just that (or simply persistence) because that is not the only aspect of Christianity that is worthwhile. I said that through faith, one can have an experience of God to which I would add the experience is felt as Spirit, as Love, as the person of the Christ--all the same. To one who has experienced this Love--despite the evident harshness in the OT, despite the harshness of this world, despite sin as however we see it, despite the failings of the people of faith--the experience, transcendent and wonderful as it is, validates the veracity of the faith as well as the Grace of God. I am sorry, so, so sorry I cannot prove this experience here and now. I just can't, and I'm not going to pretend I can or feel a failure to all readers because I can't. It would be so very easy if faith were a matter of finding the pertinent postulate or theorem, but proving Love is not possible--either it is experienced or it isn't.

That's all very well, and who knows, it may even be true, but I reiterate that persistence is proof of nothing except the fact that it satisfies someone. Unfortunately, some of the most satisfying religions and sects, it seems, are the ones which do the best job of relieving their members of the necessity to think for themselves. Once again, this neither proves nor disproves the faith. People like ready answers, and the fact that they accept them does not mean they are right. I'm certainly glad you have that faith, and hope it serves you well, but if you could prove it it wouldn't be faith, it would be something else, wouldn't it?

Off topic question: when you say that your experience of God's love validates your faith, do you suppose it validates your doctrine too? I've often wondered, if God is really benevolent and loving, perhaps he really doesn't care what sort of crapola you believe, as long as you put in an honest effort. Wouldn't that be a kick in the pants to find out all that doctrinal infighting, all those schismms, wars, burnings and beheadings and massacres were unnecessary because God, like the judges at the children's pet fair, gives a ribbon to anybody who bothers to show up?

The problem of sin is one Gordian Knot of a situation, and I do not have an Alexandrian sword to cut it. One knot seemingly untied reveals more knots beneath it more difficult--kinda' like that Hydra thing. Anyway, I do not have the time to address all of the "knots" this subject can bring up. (Copping out? Maybe. But I really don't have the time.) However, I can say that I believe the Genesis story of the Fall of Man (and Woman) is purposely open-ended because of the complex nature of the problem of sin. Turning it over and over (as may have been the intention of the authors and redactors) like a Rubic's Cube may be interesting to some, a nightmare to others, and pointless to still others. But addressing the story is something many people do--believer or non-believer. Hopefully some good may come out of it for all.

It still appears to me you've made up a new interpretation of it, which I think is....well...it's a polite forum here, so I'll just say it doesn't float my boat. I'm no fan of the idea of original sin anyway, in any doctrinal form, but what meaning it does seem to have is usually generalized as the fall from grace and the natural state that accompanies the knowledge of good and evil and the attempt of mankind to be autonomous and separate from God: a built-in feature of the human condition; The reason people sin and other animals don't. To particularize it, to tie it in with the specific acts of others or the condition of society robs this already problematic and unappetizing concept of just about any sense it might have had, as well as (see my comments before) introducing a nasty kink into the idea of free will.

[Belz...]

Yet in the OT God orders murder. How can this be rectified against the commandment not to kill? How can that be love?

I believe you meant: murder, rape, pillage and genocide. He apparently also condones killing children and incest.

What a guy!

[Ducky]

I believe you meant: murder, rape, pillage and genocide. He apparently also condones killing children and incest.

What a guy!


Indeed I did, thank you for pointing that out. :)

[.13.]

Love God.
Love your neighber as yourself.
God is Love, and when you live in Love you live in God.

I can find no argument against Love, and despite the failings and imperfections of Scripture and the faithful, still, God is Love. :)

I would like a better answer than that. Are you just saying that it should be trusted because it says so? Doesn't the old testament say the same?

Since both are interpritations of men on what basis you choose which one to follow?

Because the other is more to your liking?

Shouldn't the word of your god be followed even if you didn't like it?

And one more thing. I'd like to hear your comments on my earlier posts too. Posts #126 and #129.

[Belz...]

I can find no argument against Love, and despite the failings and imperfections of Scripture and the faithful, still, God is Love. :)

If the scriptures are imperfect, then what possible source of knowledge about God could you ever claim ?

[bruto]

If the scriptures are imperfect, then what possible source of knowledge about God could you ever claim ?

The voices in my head, of course.

http://www.silverbulletcomicbooks.com/rage/images/050401/koolaidman.jpg

[ruach1]

Off topic question: when you say that your experience of God's love validates your faith, do you suppose it validates your doctrine too? I've often wondered, if God is really benevolent and loving, perhaps he really doesn't care what sort of crapola you believe, as long as you put in an honest effort. Wouldn't that be a kick in the pants to find out all that doctrinal infighting, all those schismms, wars, burnings and beheadings and massacres were unnecessary because God, like the judges at the children's pet fair, gives a ribbon to anybody who bothers to show up?

This is Grace my friend, and the judge at the children's pet fair is a good metaphor. I'll always keep it; thanks. :)
Just show up? Maybe a little too easy; more like putting your heart into your entry, and you get the ribbon.

It still appears to me you've made up a new interpretation of it, which I think is....well...it's a polite forum here, so I'll just say it doesn't float my boat. I'm no fan of the idea of original sin anyway, in any doctrinal form, but what meaning it does seem to have is usually generalized as the fall from grace and the natural state that accompanies the knowledge of good and evil and the attempt of mankind to be autonomous and separate from God: a built-in feature of the human condition; The reason people sin and other animals don't. To particularize it, to tie it in with the specific acts of others or the condition of society robs this already problematic and unappetizing concept of just about any sense it might have had, as well as (see my comments before) introducing a nasty kink into the idea of free will.

Here's that Gordion Knot thing I was talking about...

[Huntster]

...How on earth can I claim ownership of a sin that supposedly happened when I didn't even exist? Just because some psychopathic deity tells me to do so? Shyah right. Any deity telling me that I share the sin of Adam and Eve just because it wants me to turn to it for salvation can go f**k itself.

Wow! Lots of hostility there.

Lots of hostility and hatred throughout this forum.

There is no guarantee of redemption. That is most true for those who absolutely, positively, and with great anger and hatred reject it.

Oh well.

The good part about evil is that it has to be consuming something. If you isolate it, it will eat itself.

It's good that you folks are here together. You deserve each other.

[Ducky]

Wow! Lots of hostility there.

Lots of hostility and hatred throughout this forum.

There is no guarantee of redemption. That is most true for those who absolutely, positively, and with great anger and hatred reject it.

Oh well.

The good part about evil is that it has to be consuming something. If you isolate it, it will eat itself.

It's good that you folks are here together. You deserve each other.


What the crap is that?

Are you honestly saying that we are all condemned to hell and that we're evil?

[Tricky]

Wow! Lots of hostility there.

Lots of hostility and hatred throughout this forum.
Oh no! Not hostility!:eye-poppi

Not like many Christians think that every non-Christian will burn in hell. That's not hostile is it?

There is no guarantee of redemption. That is most true for those who absolutely, positively, and with great anger and hatred reject it.
How about those who reject it with evidence, logic and indifference? I'm not angry at your God and you Christ. I simply have no reason to believe in them. I am a little annoyed with some of those who insist I must or be condemned to hell.

The good part about evil is that it has to be consuming something. If you isolate it, it will eat itself.
Well gee whiz, then we should be all out of evil by this time. Yet some Christians seem to think that evil is increasing. Go figure.

It's good that you folks are here together. You deserve each other.
Thanks. We like it. You're welcome to stay of course. But we can't be blamed if you get some evil cooties on you. They're the dickens to get rid of.

[Huntster]

What the crap is that?

Are you honestly saying that we are all condemned to hell and that we're evil?

There are many wicked statements to be found in this thread, and much hostility and hatred.

The only authority I have to condemn anyone is the authority to condemn myself.

Just like everybody else.

[Huntster]

...Thanks. We like it. You're welcome to stay of course. But we can't be blamed if you get some evil cooties on you. They're the dickens to get rid of.

Thanks, but you're right. The price of sin is death. I've already got plenty, and it has been killing me.

Oh, by the way, I condemn nobody to hell. I don't have the authority.

[Ducky]

There are many wicked statements to be found in this thread, and much hostility and hatred.

The only authority I have to condemn anyone is the authority to condemn myself.

Just like everybody else.


Wicked statements and hostility. Indeed. Like yours?

The good part about evil is that it has to be consuming something. If you isolate it, it will eat itself.

It's good that you folks are here together. You deserve each other.

[Tricky]

Thanks, but you're right. The price of sin is death. I've already got plenty, and it has been killing me.

Oh, by the way, I condemn nobody to hell. I don't have the authority.
If you check my post, you will note that I never said you did condemn anyone to hell. But you believe in and support a God who does. No, don't try the "you condemn yourself" ploy, we've heard it before. If He makes the rules, the He is the one doing the condemning. And you seem to be okay with this. Also, you seem to be the one who enjoys telling us who will be condemned. Are you God's hatchet man? The one who doesn't make the decisions but loves giving out the bad news?

[ruach1]

Yet in the OT God orders murder. How can this be rectified against the commandment not to kill? How can that be love?
I ask myself that just about every day...
What answer do I get?
Something like the first quote in blue. Still doesn't satisfy me. But the Love of God does satisfy me, and I'll choose God over the Bible as a means for spiritual satisfaction any and every day. :)

[PatKelley]

The authors of the OT did not make God. I see the experience of God as being filtered through men and written of as Scripture. They saw and understood God in the way they did relative to their time. There are things in the OT that are unsuitable for modern times like stoning adulterers and so on. However there are other things in the OT like "do not murder" and so on which are applicable for all times.

Love God.
Love your neighber as yourself.
God is Love, and when you live in Love you live in God.

I can find no argument against Love, and despite the failings and imperfections of Scripture and the faithful, still, God is Love. :)

Acts 5:1-5: if you are cheap, God will kill you. Yes, the New Testament loving personal God Jesus Christ.But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession,
2And kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles' feet.
3But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?
4Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.
5And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the ghost: and great fear came on all them that heard these things.
Oh, then he goes on to kill the wife as well.

And of course, this admonishment to starve the indigent...or an exhortation to communism...2nd Thessalonians 3:20...
For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.

[Ducky]

I ask myself that just about every day...
What answer do I get?
Something like the first quote in blue. Still doesn't satisfy me. But the Love of God does satisfy me, and I'll choose God over the Bible as a means for spiritual satisfaction any and every day. :)


So you're okay with a complete contradiction between your interpretation of the bible, and what is found in the bible?

[ruach1]

[QUOTE=PatKelley;1268279] Yes, the New Testament loving personal God Jesus Christ.
Bingo! :)

No matter what you can pull out of the Bible to say otherwise--
:)

[ruach1]

So you're okay with a complete contradiction between your interpretation of the bible, and what is found in the bible?
There are many things found in the Bible, fowlsound, and they're not all contradictory. My interpretation of the Bible is not contradictory with how I sense God. However, there are some things in the Bible that do contradict how I sense God--but maybe not to others.

Spirituality is not like a math textbook, nor can you find the right theorem to get the right answer on God. Christian spirituality is a complex matter of the heart which is simple and impossible to understand at the same time. Its rather paradoxical. Can you deal with paradox? I think I can, (not in a solving manner but in a dealing with manner) which is one reason why Christianity comes to me as easily as it does (I think...). :)

[ruach1]

If you check my post, you will note that I never said you did condemn anyone to hell. But you believe in and support a God who does. No, don't try the "you condemn yourself" ploy, we've heard it before. If He makes the rules, the He is the one doing the condemning. And you seem to be okay with this. Also, you seem to be the one who enjoys telling us who will be condemned. Are you God's hatchet man? The one who doesn't make the decisions but loves giving out the bad news?
Where do you belong? Just where do you belong?

Condemnation and redemption may not be a matter of passing judgment. Rather, it may be a matter of being where you truly belong--now and elsewhere.

[UrsulaV]

Yes, but have you really tried it? How can you tell its effect if you haven't really tried it?

Really tried what? Reincarnation, Christianity, or LSD?

That's a "Not that I'm aware of," a "yes," and a "heh heh heh...lookit the colors, maaaan!"

[Tricky]

Where do you belong? Just where do you belong?

Condemnation and redemption may not be a matter of passing judgment. Rather, it may be a matter of being where you truly belong--now and elsewhere.
So it's just a sorting out, like the first year students at Hogwarts? Many people should be in hell (or Slytherin) and they would be happier there? It's not a bad placed where evil people go? That certainly would be an unconventional interpretaition.

Well, if this is true, then why the push to recruit for heaven that so many Christians have? Are there quotas to meet? Do God and Satan have a bet? Whats the big deal if you wind up where you belong and where you would be happier?

Ah, but if, as many suggest, one place is markedly better than the other, then it is a matter of passing judgment, wouldn't you say? If there is a good versus bad decision to be made, then someone/something must make that decision, right? And who makes that decision? Why it is the one who makes and enforces the rules.

[PatKelley]

My question, then:

Why the Bible? I could find excellent and life-affirming statements in the Dictionary.

[Belz...]

It's good that you folks are here together. You deserve each other.

Talk about forgiveness.

Be seeing you.

[Belz...]

There are many wicked statements to be found in this thread, and much hostility and hatred.

The only authority I have to condemn anyone is the authority to condemn myself.

Just like everybody else.

Ah! The pious kind. Not master of his own destiny. Only God can determine your path. That's pretty funny, considering how much you guys yap about free will.

[Belz...]

I ask myself that just about every day...
What answer do I get?
Something like the first quote in blue. Still doesn't satisfy me. But the Love of God does satisfy me, and I'll choose God over the Bible as a means for spiritual satisfaction any and every day. :)

I'll assume you were answering my post on this.

Funny thing about the love of God...

If God was so great, you'd think he'd make himself known, especially to the unbelievers, so as to at least give them the evidence they need to regain their faith. In reality, however, only those who already believe in him "feel" his presence. In other words, God only gives evidence to those who don't need any.

What a dork.

[Belz...]

There are many things found in the Bible, fowlsound, and they're not all contradictory. My interpretation of the Bible is not contradictory with how I sense God. However, there are some things in the Bible that do contradict how I sense God--but maybe not to others.


Now, that's a funny thing. Obviously you have the right to believe what you will. But it's funny how, beign that the Bible is the source of christian knowledge, you would place your own interpretation of the bible, in SOME passages, over what the book says. How can you trust ANYTHING about the bible, existence of God included, if some passages are suspect ?

[Belz...]

[QUOTE=ruach1;1268320Condemnation and redemption may not be a matter of passing judgment. Rather, it may be a matter of being where you truly belong--now and elsewhere.[/QUOTE]

I would've thought that a place of eternal suffering isn't exactly the place I belong in, even if I didn't believe in God. How evil is that, really ?

[UrsulaV]

I would've thought that a place of eternal suffering isn't exactly the place I belong in, even if I didn't believe in God. How evil is that, really ?

I'm curious as to how one can justify eternal torture with a loving god. I mean, if a country tortured someone for percieved crimes, for years on end, it'd be a serious human rights violation and Amnesty International would be on their ass. If a person tortured their children for years for percieved sins, we'd judge them psychotic and unfit to parent.

And those are finite, and limited.

But someone comes along and says "Oh, hey, in a lot of these cases you had no possible chance to escape through one of my loopholes, you lived in an obscure tribe in the middle of the Amazon and never heard of Christianity, you were completely soured on Christianity by one of the above mentioned parents and get post-traumatic stress whenever somebody quotes the Bible at you--well, too bad! Eternal torment for yoooou!"

And this is evidence of a loving god. That you punish someone without end. Ever. They have no opportunity to learn from it or change their behavior--they just get punished.

If you're housebreaking a puppy that you love, you whack 'im on the nose with a rolled up newspaper when he pees on the floor. You don't say "Whoops, too bad for you!" and strap him to the rack and torture him until he dies. That's not love, that's pure sadism.

How does anyone who believes in a loving god rationalize the existence of hell?

[Huntster]

...If God was so great, you'd think he'd make himself known, especially to the unbelievers, so as to at least give them the evidence they need to regain their faith....

He has made Himself known.

It's just that some accept, some are indifferent, and some reject venomously.

If "evidence" is needed, then "faith" is not achieved.

...The Pharisees and Sadducees came and, to test him, asked him to show them a sign from heaven. He said to them in reply, "In the evening you say, 'Tomorrow will be fair, for the sky is red'; and, in the morning, 'Today will be stormy, for the sky is red and threatening.' You know how to judge the appearance of the sky, but you cannot judge the signs of the times. An evil and unfaithful generation seeks a sign, but no sign will be given it except the sign of Jonah." Then he left them and went away....

[Huntster]

I would've thought that a place of eternal suffering isn't exactly the place I belong in, even if I didn't believe in God. How evil is that, really ?

In order to clarify Hell and what it is, I thought I'd include the definition from the Roman Catholic Catechism:

http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/glossary.htm#h

...HELL: The state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed, reserved for those who refuse by their own free choice to believe and be converted from sin, even to the end of their lives (1033)...

[kmortis]

He has made Himself known.

Oh, really? How? I haven't seen anything.

It's just that some accept, some are indifferent, and some reject venomously.

You mean like every OTHER opinion?

If "evidence" is needed, then "faith" is not achieved.

Right, 'cause convictions cause convicts.

"It is my firm belief that it is a mistake to have firm beliefs"
-Macalypse the Elder

[Belz...]

If you're housebreaking a puppy that you love, you whack 'im on the nose with a rolled up newspaper when he pees on the floor. You don't say "Whoops, too bad for you!" and strap him to the rack and torture him until he dies. That's not love, that's pure sadism.

How does anyone who believes in a loving god rationalize the existence of hell?

Easy. Since God CANNOT be wrong, any and everything he does can only be right. They justify God's madness because, if God is wrong, their entire faith is suspect. They rationalise everything... kinda like a kid who ignores the smell to keep his safety blanket on.

[Belz...]

He has made Himself known.

It's just that some accept, some are indifferent, and some reject venomously.

If "evidence" is needed, then "faith" is not achieved.

Sorry. God has never made himself known to me. Your argument is flawed.

[Belz...]

In order to clarify Hell and what it is, I thought I'd include the definition from the Roman Catholic Catechism:

http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/glossary.htm#h

By that definition, Hell looks like a party where God simply isn't invited.

But that's not what Jesus said about hell.

[kmortis]

By that definition, Hell looks like a party where God simply isn't invited.

But that's not what Jesus said about hell.

Ammend to "Hell looks like a party where God simply isn't invited, that He started, funded, found the hall for and otherwise setup."

So, God (who is described as omnipresent) ISN'T in hell....
not very omni- is he?

[PatKelley]

He has made Himself known.

It's just that some accept, some are indifferent, and some reject venomously.

If "evidence" is needed, then "faith" is not achieved.
Why'd the same guy show up lickety-split when Thomas said he wouldn't believe without evidence? Why did he perform any miracles at all? Shouldn't everyone just have taken his word? Why are miracles cited as proof, and when hearsay is discounted, believers insist no proof is needed?

Some reject venomously? Only after it's been insisted that the relation of miracles are proof of divine nature, and then told that proof isn't needed.

Why'd he even bother being ressurrected if faith was all that was needed? Faith in past proof? That doesn't follow.

[Huntster]

Sorry. God has never made himself known to me. Your argument is flawed.

If you reject Jesus of Nazareth, you have rejected Him, not the other way around.

[Huntster]

[QUOTE=kmortis;1268796]Ammend to "Hell looks like a party where God simply isn't invited, that He started, funded, found the hall for and otherwise setup."...QUOTE]

He is a gracious host to provide a place for those who reject Him.

[kmortis]

If you reject Jesus of Nazareth, you have rejected Him, not the other way around.

There's a leap of logic.

If I reject him then I reject him. Oooooo...did you figure that out all by yourself, or did you have to have it pointed out to you by your handler? I don't deny that a Jesus existed, I just deny that he's in any way divine. Since no divinity has seen fit to demonstrate their existance to me, I have no reason to believe in their existance, do I?

[bruto]

This is Grace my friend, and the judge at the children's pet fair is a good metaphor. I'll always keep it; thanks. :)
Just show up? Maybe a little too easy; more like putting your heart into your entry, and you get the ribbon.



An interpretation shared by very few adherents of any religion, with the possible exception of Universalists. Most of the others think doctrine is pretty important, and that their loving, benevolent God will be quick to throw the adherents of other faiths, even other sects and schisms, into hell for the specific content of their beliefs.

[Huntster]

Why'd the same guy show up lickety-split when Thomas said he wouldn't believe without evidence?....

For the benefit of those who require "evidence". Thomas, symbolizing the first skeptic of Christianity, was given the blessing of "evidence", and we are given the blessing of the lesson:

...You have come to believe because you have seen. Blessed are they who have not seen, yet believe...

[kmortis]

For the benefit of those who require "evidence". Thomas, symbolizing the first skeptic of Christianity, was given the blessing of "evidence", and we are given the blessing of the lesson:

Therefore demonstrating Christianity's penchant for "style over substance", eh?

[Huntster]

There's a leap of logic.

If I reject him then I reject him. Oooooo...did you figure that out all by yourself, or did you have to have it pointed out to you by your handler?...

Both. It is very simple logic, and I have come to understand it through religious study.

...Since no divinity has seen fit to demonstrate their existance to me, I have no reason to believe in their existance, do I?...

If you are of the mind that all things must be revealed to you in your own personal theater, than you have no reason to believe.

If you are capable of faith, then you have the ability to believe.

[Huntster]

An interpretation shared by very few adherents of any religion, with the possible exception of Universalists. Most of the others think doctrine is pretty important, and that their loving, benevolent God will be quick to throw the adherents of other faiths, even other sects and schisms, into hell for the specific content of their beliefs.

Do you have any evidence to support that statement?

[Huntster]

Therefore demonstrating Christianity's penchant for "style over substance", eh?

What does that mean?

[kmortis]

Both. It is very simple logic, and I have come to understand it through religious study.



If you are of the mind that all things must be revealed to you in your own personal theater, than you have no reason to believe.

If you are capable of faith, then you have the ability to believe.

And since, by this logic, I am incapable of faith, the I don't have the ability to believe.
However, this deficency would have had to been designed into me.
So by God's hand I do not have this ability, and therefore He condems me for something that He did.
Nice....

Or, he doens't exist at all; there is no hell, no afterlife.

[kmortis]

What does that mean?

Simple. You stated:
For the benefit of those who require "evidence". Thomas, symbolizing the first skeptic of Christianity, was given the blessing of "evidence", and we are given the blessing of the lesson:

So, the entire argument you've put forth as to why god don't show himeself is that he's given us a "symbol", in the form of Thomas. Had some schmuck write about it in a book, that is then used as proof that this same god exists.

...

No. I'm sorry. Cricular logic just doens't work. Thomas was Thomas (anyone have confirming evidence that Thomas actually existed? i'm seriously asking, I don't know), it's so nice that the ol' JC decided to reveal himself to Thom. But you cannot then go and have the Bible be your source for your premise, and the evidence you give to support the premise.

So, my "style over substance" comment comes from that you gave to us a "symbol" of "all skeptics" rather than any sort of real evidence.

So, here's your task.
1) Give evidence to the existance of God
2) Give evidence to the existance of Hell. (this should be made easier if you complete task #1)
3) Demonstrate that the former will send me to the later if I don't believe in him/her/it.

[Huntster]

And since, by this logic, I am incapable of faith, the I don't have the ability to believe.....

You are capable of faith. You have rejected it.

...However, this deficency would have had to been designed into me.

Free choice is recognized by the Catholic Church as the first sin:

...ORIGINAL SIN:
The sin by which the first human beings disobeyed the commandment of God, choosing to follow their own will rather than God's will. As a consequence they lost the grace of original holiness, and became subject to the law of death; sin became universally present in the world. Besides the personal sin of Adam and Eve, original sin describes the fallen state of human nature which affects every person born into the world, and from which Christ, the "new Adam," came to redeem us (396-412)...

It wasn't a design flaw. It was the desire to "be like God", which was spurred by the temptation of The Evil One, who (already a purely spiritual being) tempted humanity in order to throw a wrench in God's creation.

...The serpent asked the woman, "Did God really tell you not to eat from any of the trees in the garden?" The woman answered the serpent: "We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden; it is only about the fruit of the tree in the middle of the garden that God said, 'You shall not eat it or even touch it, lest you die.'" But the serpent said to the woman: "You certainly will not die! No, God knows well that the moment you eat of it your eyes will be opened and you will be like gods who know what is good and what is bad." The woman saw that the tree was good for food, pleasing to the eyes, and desirable for gaining wisdom. So she took some of its fruit and ate it; and she also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized that they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made loincloths for themselves....

[PatKelley]

For the benefit of those who require "evidence". Thomas, symbolizing the first skeptic of Christianity, was given the blessing of "evidence", and we are given the blessing of the lesson:

So, no answer eh? I thought it required no evidence, but it does, but it doesn't.

Must be one of those "mysteries." Like why bad things happen to good people, or righteous people condemn others to eternal damnation for holding a different opinion.

[PatKelley]

You are capable of faith. You have rejected it.



Free choice is recognized by the Catholic Church as the first sin:



It wasn't a design flaw. It was the desire to "be like God", which was spurred by the temptation of The Evil One, who (already a purely spiritual being) tempted humanity in order to throw a wrench in God's creation.

...The serpent asked the woman, "Did God really tell you not to eat from any of the trees in the garden?" The woman answered the serpent: "We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden; it is only about the fruit of the tree in the middle of the garden that God said, 'You shall not eat it or even touch it, lest you die.'" But the serpent said to the woman: "You certainly will not die! No, God knows well that the moment you eat of it your eyes will be opened and you will be like gods who know what is good and what is bad." The woman saw that the tree was good for food, pleasing to the eyes, and desirable for gaining wisdom. So she took some of its fruit and ate it; and she also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized that they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made loincloths for themselves....[/QUOTE]

So, the free will created by God, the serpent and the devil created by God, and the people created by God - God isn't responsible for how they would act? Why did He bother with free will, if it was only going to cause trouble? And since when was free will a sin? So, the way to righteousness is in slavish abasement and nonthinking? Still, for an omnipotent (how did the devil have the power over men if God didn't allow it) omniscient (God didn't know what the devil would do? Or when it was being done? And why did God have to even call out to Adam and Eve, if he was omniscient? Couldn't He find them with his all-seeing eye?) God he doesn't seem all that bright.

So many questions! And so few answers other than "so it is written."

[Huntster]

So, no answer eh? I thought it required no evidence, but it does, but it doesn't.

Must be one of those "mysteries." Like why bad things happen to good people, or righteous people condemn others to eternal damnation for holding a different opinion.

Human testimony was given. You have rejected it.

Bad things happen to good people because that's the way things are in the natural world. Period. The rain falls on the good as well as the bad.

Again, righteous people cannot condemn others to anything. All people have the ability to choose God or reject him. If people are condemned, they do it to themselves.

[Belz...]

If you reject Jesus of Nazareth, you have rejected Him, not the other way around.

Oh, no no no no no! He made me the way I am: I accept evidence. Let him provide some.

You faithful types all claim that God can be "felt" by everyone. Obviously, you're wrong, as many either don't "feel" him or "feel" another God.

[Huntster]

...So many questions! And so few answers other than "so it is written."

And all the skeptics have to counter the written word is that there is no physical evidence of non-physical things.

[Belz...]

He is a gracious host to provide a place for those who reject Him.

Oh, yes. Such a cozy, pleasant place.

[Belz...]

For the benefit of those who require "evidence". Thomas, symbolizing the first skeptic of Christianity, was given the blessing of "evidence", and we are given the blessing of the lesson:

Symbolizing ? Are you saying Thomas never really existed ?

[Belz...]

Both. It is very simple logic, and I have come to understand it through religious study.

Then I submit you don't know what logic is.

If you are of the mind that all things must be revealed to you in your own personal theater, than you have no reason to believe.

Damn straight. Otherwise I'd believe in homeopathy, Islam, karma...

I'd be like Kilik.

If you are capable of faith, then you have the ability to believe.

Those are pretty much synonyms, Huntster.

[Huntster]

Oh, no no no no no! He made me the way I am: I accept evidence. Let him provide some....

...The Pharisees and Sadducees came and, to test him, asked him to show them a sign from heaven. He said to them in reply, "In the evening you say, 'Tomorrow will be fair, for the sky is red'; and, in the morning, 'Today will be stormy, for the sky is red and threatening.' You know how to judge the appearance of the sky, but you cannot judge the signs of the times. An evil and unfaithful generation seeks a sign, but no sign will be given it except the sign of Jonah." Then he left them and went away...


...You faithful types all claim that God can be "felt" by everyone. Obviously, you're wrong, as many either don't "feel" him or "feel" another God...

He cannot be felt if He is rejected.

[Belz...]

You are capable of faith. You have rejected it.

Free choice is recognized by the Catholic Church as the first sin:

Interesting. You said that we REJECT God, and that that's a choice, right ? I assume that NOT rejecting God is a choice as well. Then you say that free choice is a sin. Ergo, choosing God is a sin.

It wasn't a design flaw. It was the desire to "be like God", which was spurred by the temptation of The Evil One, who (already a purely spiritual being) tempted humanity in order to throw a wrench in God's creation.

The desire to be "like" God which was implanted by God because he made us IN HIS IMAGE.

[kmortis]

...So many questions! And so few answers other than "so it is written."

And all the skeptics have to counter the written word is that there is no physical evidence of non-physical things.[/QUOTE]

Soooo....you're saying that Jesus didn't exist? Or Thomas? Or Judas, for that matter? Cool, that means that your entire faith is on the same level as a Robert Jordan book.

[Belz...]

Human testimony was given. You have rejected it.


Ah, but testimony is so notoriously unreliable.

[Belz...]

And all the skeptics have to counter the written word is that there is no physical evidence of non-physical things.

How is that bad ? You consider your feelings of God to be evidence in his favor, right ? If you didn't "feel" God, you wouldn't believe in him, would you ? Isn't that working with evidence ?

[Belz...]

He cannot be felt if He is rejected.

Isn't he OMNIPOTENT ?

[kmortis]

He cannot be felt if He is rejected.

Ooo...this is getting better.

Iacchus, if I ever said anything nasty to you, I apologize. We have a COMPLETE nut here.

So, lemme see; if I reject him...then I can't even detect him...which in turn confirms my rejection. Ahh, gotta love those circular reasonings.

[Belz...]

Ooo...this is getting better.

Iacchus, if I ever said anything nasty to you, I apologize. We have a COMPLETE nut here.

So, lemme see; if I reject him...then I can't even detect him...which in turn confirms my rejection. Ahh, gotta love those circular reasonings.

This is a prime example of apologetics. Everything is twisted and turned to confirm their notions, no matter what the evidence says.

Believers always use science whenever they think they can get away with it, and then say that "science isn't everything" when they can't. "faith" is tantamount, because it doesn't rely on things that can show you you're wrong.

My mother's like that, a lot. But she's extended this habit to EVERYTHING, not just religion.

[Huntster]

Symbolizing ? Are you saying Thomas never really existed ?

No.

Thomas exhibited doubt when told of the appearance by the other apostles. He came up with the same, lame excuse so common among skeptics everywhere:

...the other disciples said to him, "We have seen the Lord." But he said to them, "Unless I see the mark of the nails in his hands and put my finger into the nailmarks and put my hand into his side, I will not believe....

You reject the faith that Christ repeatedly tried to instill in all. You want your own, personal audience.

Why are you more special than all the other people of today and all of history that you deserve a personal demonstration?

[Huntster]

... Then you say that free choice is a sin...

That is not what I wrote.

[kmortis]

Why are you more special than all the other people of today and all of history that you deserve a personal demonstration?

Oh, no personal demo necessary. A public one will do nicely. Just one that is unmistakable for anything else.

[Huntster]

...The desire to be "like" God which was implanted by God because he made us IN HIS IMAGE.

"In his image" is not "as his equal".

[Huntster]

And all the skeptics have to counter the written word is that there is no physical evidence of non-physical things.

Soooo....you're saying that Jesus didn't exist? Or Thomas? Or Judas, for that matter? Cool, that means that your entire faith is on the same level as a Robert Jordan book.

You are playing weak games. Jesus, Thomas, and Judas all existed, and that is supported by written history.

I do not know who Robert Jordan is.

[kmortis]

The desire to be "like" God which was implanted by God because he made us IN HIS IMAGE.

Belz,
The translation of that passage is wrong, it should read:
And man made God in his image.

Please make a note of it.

[Huntster]

Ah, but testimony is so notoriously unreliable.

Indeed. Your writings are a clear example of that.

However, unlike your words, the historical accounts of Jesus of Nazereth was supported by several written sources.

[Belz...]

Thomas exhibited doubt when told of the appearance by the other apostles. He came up with the same, lame excuse so common among skeptics everywhere:

How is evidence lame ? It gave us electricity, television, and the internet you're using to spill your guts here.

You reject the faith that Christ repeatedly tried to instill in all. You want your own, personal audience.

Of course I want my own audience, but only when I'm on stage.

Why are you more special than all the other people of today and all of history that you deserve a personal demonstration?

Because people can be fooled in believing things that aren't there. Look at UFO buffs and other were-woo. They believe like almost no christian does. Does that mean they're right ? Of course not.

If God wanted us to believe without evidence, then he should have been smart and made us irrational. Completely, that it.

And, by the way. I don't REJECT God. For that, I'd have to believe in him.

[Belz...]

That is not what I wrote.

That is precisely what you said:

You are capable of faith. You have rejected it. [CHOICE]

Free choice is recognized by the Catholic Church as the first sin: [emphasis added]

There.

[Huntster]

How is that bad ? You consider your feelings of God to be evidence in his favor, right ? ...

To me, yes.

..If you didn't "feel" God, you wouldn't believe in him, would you ? Isn't that working with evidence ?...

No. I believed before more was given.

Rejection will reciprocate. Acceptance will garner grace.

[kmortis]

You are playing weak games. Jesus, Thomas, and Judas all existed, and that is supported by written history.

I do not know who Robert Jordan is.


Robert Jordan is a fantasy author (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/external-search/102-2371451-6002562?tag=opera-20&index=blended&keyword=robert+jordan).

[Belz...]

"In his image" is not "as his equal".

"like" isn't equal either.

Also, it occurs to me that the serpent was telling the truth, while God lied to Adam and Eve. They gained the knowledge of Good and Evil, and they did not die.

[kmortis]

Indeed. Your writings are a clear example of that.

However, unlike your words, the historical accounts of Jesus of Nazereth was supported by several written sources.

Josephus is not several.

[Belz...]

Indeed. Your writings are a clear example of that.

How so ? When did I offer testimony ? There is no evidence.

However, unlike your words, the historical accounts of Jesus of Nazereth was supported by several written sources.

Name ONE.

[Huntster]

...My mother's like that, a lot. But she's extended this habit to EVERYTHING, not just religion.

You should pay more attention to your Mommie. She sounds much wiser than you.

[Belz...]

No. I believed before more was given.

Of course you did. And if you were born in Saudi Arabia you'd believe in the Qu'ran, not the Bible.

.

[Belz...]

Josephus is not several.

He's also not one. His passage is an interpolation, probably from Eusebius in the 4th century.

[Belz...]

You should pay more attention to your Mommie. She sounds much wiser than you.

Because every one of her thoughts is accepted as true without reflexion ? That's ridiculous. If she sees someone, and doesn't like their face, their automatically a bad person. How is that wise ?

[kmortis]

He's also not one. His passage is an interpolation, probably from Eusebius in the 4th century.

That's debatable, but probably accurate. I'm being generous to our dear Hunster by providing an example to possibly spark something approaching a logical thought.

[Belz...]

That's debatable, but probably accurate. I'm being generous to our dear Hunster by providing an example to possibly spark something approaching a logical thought.

I'm not generous. As I said, allergy.

[kmortis]

I'm not generous. As I said, allergy.

I understand.

I blame the metric system, myself. For no reason other than I have to blame something, eh? :D

[Huntster]

How so ? When did I offer testimony ? There is no evidence.



Name ONE.

How about several:

Eusebius of Caesarea, Flavius Josephus, Justin Martyr, Philo of Alexandria, Tertullian, Cornelius Tacitus, and the authors of the Dead Sea Scrolls.

[Huntster]

Of course you did. And if you were born in Saudi Arabia you'd believe in the Qu'ran, not the Bible.

.

I have no problem with the Quran.

That brings up the interesting question:

Where were you born?

[Belz...]

How about several:

Eusebius of Caesarea, Flavius Josephus, Justin Martyr, Philo of Alexandria, Tertullian, Cornelius Tacitus

All discounted as either interpolations of unclear passages.

Read:
www.infidels.org/library/modern/james_still/historical_jesus.html
as a starting point

, and the authors of the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Same source as those of the testaments. No points there.

[Belz...]

Also.

Eusebius was a man that said that lying to promote religion was a good thing. Can't trust much of what he wrote.

[Belz...]

I have no problem with the Quran.

Even if it says you're a filthy infidel ?

Where were you born?

In a catholic environment. I outgrew the social factors by LEARNING things instead of accepting them.

Doubt is the foundation of wisdom.

[kmortis]

Also.

Eusebius was a man that said that lying to promote religion was a good thing. Can't trust much of what he wrote.


Ooo...like to have the source on that one. Gotta linky?