From what continent you think the new pope will be from? Share your thoughts and opinions. Im hoping to see a new pope from asia.
I hope the new pope is from Narnia.
Pope Dolan
Pope Mark Rosewater. He'll bring about a New World Order in the Catholic Church, and make the institution more fair and balanced.
Quote from: Frothandslosh on March 13, 2013, 12:14:59 PM
Pope Mark Rosewater. He'll bring about a New World Order in the Catholic Church, and make the institution more fair and balanced.
I don't think Catholic Church is about balance, honestly ;) I think they are biased towards so-callled 'good', I guess that would be white for us.
Quote from: Piotr on March 13, 2013, 12:24:32 PM
Quote from: Frothandslosh on March 13, 2013, 12:14:59 PM
Pope Mark Rosewater. He'll bring about a New World Order in the Catholic Church, and make the institution more fair and balanced.
I don't think Catholic Church is about balance, honestly ;) I think they are biased towards so-callled 'good', I guess that would be white for us.
They're more like the {B}{W} Orzohv, because of all the money collecting they do.
Quote from: Frothandslosh on March 13, 2013, 12:27:09 PM
Quote from: Piotr on March 13, 2013, 12:24:32 PM
Quote from: Frothandslosh on March 13, 2013, 12:14:59 PM
Pope Mark Rosewater. He'll bring about a New World Order in the Catholic Church, and make the institution more fair and balanced.
I don't think Catholic Church is about balance, honestly ;) I think they are biased towards so-callled 'good', I guess that would be white for us.
They're more like the {B}{W} Orzohv, because of all the money collecting they do.
There's nothing {B} in collecting money given willingly. Do you claim that me profiting from sales of iMtG is {B}?
Quote from: Piotr on March 13, 2013, 12:31:18 PM
Quote from: Frothandslosh on March 13, 2013, 12:27:09 PM
Quote from: Piotr on March 13, 2013, 12:24:32 PM
Quote from: Frothandslosh on March 13, 2013, 12:14:59 PM
Pope Mark Rosewater. He'll bring about a New World Order in the Catholic Church, and make the institution more fair and balanced.
I don't think Catholic Church is about balance, honestly ;) I think they are biased towards so-callled 'good', I guess that would be white for us.
They're more like the {B}{W} Orzohv, because of all the money collecting they do.
There's nothing {B} in collecting money given willingly. Do you claim that me profiting from sales of iMtG is {B}?
Lol, no way! Didn't mean to offend.
There is an element of {B} to the Catholic Church, or any organization for that matter. The use of fear, extortion, misinformation, rejection of reason, anti-intellectualism, lack of respect for evidence, imperialism, debt and human rights violations.
Quote from: Dudecore on March 13, 2013, 12:39:21 PM
There is an element of {B} to the Catholic Church, or any organization for that matter. The use of fear, extortion, misinformation, rejection of reason, anti-intellectualism, lack of respect for evidence, imperialism, debt and human rights violations.
isnt black also about self-indulgence? Are they self-indulgent? I also thought that MaRo said that {B}{W} is a small group benefiting at the expense of others, like the mafia
I mean no offense to any Christians, as no one can for certain say what is true and what is not about any religion/philosophy. Personally, I do not believe in Catholicism. I beleive it was intended to be a philosophy and code of morals to live by, but was transformed into a center of power from which to rule others. That said, I think the majority of christian teachings make an excellent moral philosophy to live by :)
WHITE SMOKE
ITS HAPPENING
Quote from: Mike_garzone on March 13, 2013, 01:59:12 PM
I mean no offense to any Christians, as no one can for certain say what is true and what is not about any religion/philosophy. Personally, I do not believe in Catholicism. I beleive it was intended to be a philosophy and code of morals to live by, but was transformed into a center of power from which to rule others. That said, I think the majority of christian teachings make an excellent moral philosophy to live by :)
it is my understanding, (and I'm not responding if someone refutes this, because i don't want a repeat of this creature, that color) that its supposed to be a relationship, not a religion. And that the laws and commandments were supposed to be a social code for people to have a relationship with Christ and God. Just like you shouldn't spit or burp in someone's face. Or call them names
No idea why religions get so much hate these days. I personally believe in religions (as in, they are generally a very good thing to have), not so much in God.
Quote from: Piotr on March 13, 2013, 03:50:43 PM
No idea why religions get so much hate these days. I personally believe in religions (as in, they are generally a very good thing to have), not so much in God.
Totally agree!
Pope Francis I, the nerdy chemistry guy from Argentina. At least he doesn't look like a Disney villain, like Benedict did.
The commandments and things of that nature are part of our covenant with God to live a life as holy as we possibly can.
Dave Mustaine for Pope! ✊😌
Quote from: Piotr on March 13, 2013, 03:50:43 PM
No idea why religions get so much hate these days. I personally believe in religions (as in, they are generally a very good thing to have), not so much in God.
if this was a response to what I said. I didn't say anything against religion this time. Just what I think Christianity is
For me just praying and believing is enough.I don't go to church much. It's much better to have something or someone to hold on to in times of need. There is a story wherein a guy stating that he doesn't believe in Christ or god all those are just cr^p. one time he went on a trip riding a boat and suddenly the boat flipped he fell and shouted, GOD help me pls. God help me!
Quote from: Piotr on March 13, 2013, 03:50:43 PM
No idea why religions get so much hate these days. I personally believe in religions (as in, they are generally a very good thing to have), not so much in God.
I utterly disagree. So many horrible things have been committed in the name of religion. In addition religion obscures truth IMHO. Where has religion been beneficial to humanity? If the church had their way, we would never have had any scientific advances..
Quote from: Milo109 on March 13, 2013, 10:06:15 PM
Quote from: Piotr on March 13, 2013, 03:50:43 PM
No idea why religions get so much hate these days. I personally believe in religions (as in, they are generally a very good thing to have), not so much in God.
I utterly disagree. So many horrible things have been committed in the name of religion. In addition religion obscures truth IMHO. Where has religion been beneficial to humanity? If the church had their way, we would never have had any scientific advances..
Terrible things have been done in the name of many things. That has nothing to do with the religion itself, for instance. Do most Christians agree with things like the Crusades and what has been done in the name of Christianity? No. Lets me serious here. Humans are human. Just because people use something to further their OWN cause does not mean that whatever they are using to justify their cause was meant to be used that way.
Its like people saying that video games caused them to go kill people in real life. They can use that excuse, but is that the actual purpose of video games? Absolutely not. Just because you use something as an excuse doesnt make it valid.
Quote from: NyghtHawk on March 13, 2013, 10:15:25 PM
Quote from: Milo109 on March 13, 2013, 10:06:15 PM
Quote from: Piotr on March 13, 2013, 03:50:43 PM
No idea why religions get so much hate these days. I personally believe in religions (as in, they are generally a very good thing to have), not so much in God.
I utterly disagree. So many horrible things have been committed in the name of religion. In addition religion obscures truth IMHO. Where has religion been beneficial to humanity? If the church had their way, we would never have had any scientific advances..
Terrible things have been done in the name of many things. That has nothing to do with the religion itself, for instance. Do most Christians agree with things like the Crusades and what has been done in the name of Christianity? No. Lets me serious here. Humans are human. Just because people use something to further their OWN cause does not mean that whatever they are using to justify their cause was meant to be used that way.
Its like people saying that video games caused them to go kill people in real life. They can use that excuse, but is that the actual purpose of video games? Absolutely not. Just because you use something as an excuse doesnt make it valid.
Well said.
Religion is just a tool, like knife or aircraft carrier. Probably all tools can be used to do evil things. Religion is a nice tool to have, if only for the fact that it provides moral code enforced by ultimate power. It helped humanity to solve 'prisoner's dilemma', without religion it would be near to impossible to run societies when CSI technology wasn't invented yet.
Also, 'If the church had their way, we would never have had any scientific advances.' is a very obvious lie, so please be careful.
Quote from: Milo109 on March 13, 2013, 10:06:15 PM
Quote from: Piotr on March 13, 2013, 03:50:43 PM
No idea why religions get so much hate these days. I personally believe in religions (as in, they are generally a very good thing to have), not so much in God.
I utterly disagree. So many horrible things have been committed in the name of religion. In addition religion obscures truth IMHO. Where has religion been beneficial to humanity? If the church had their way, we would never have had any scientific advances..
if there is no religion and people doesnt believe in a supreme being, there will be chaos. People will no longer have fear to do evil stuff like killing, rape, stealing etc..
Quote from: Revils on March 14, 2013, 10:29:55 AM
if there is no religion and people doesnt believe in a supreme being, there will be chaos. People will no longer have fear to do evil stuff like killing, rape, stealing etc..
I generally like to stay out of religious topics, but I have to say I disagree with this a bit. I get where you're coming from, but these aren't characteristics of someone who does/doesn't believe in religion. These are characteristics of the person. In your case, this would mean that all Atheists are rapists and murderers, just because they have no fear of judgment. This is not true, people don't rape or kill because they think its bad. I'm sure plenty of people who have killed others have been religious, in spite of being judged by their god. If a person wants to kill, they will kill, regardless of their beliefs.
There is a fine line between religion and faith. Someone can be very faithful without adhering to religious dogma. "Move a piece of wood and I am there, lift a stone and you will find me..."
Jon Finkel for pope and i would agree to his dicision of changing the name of the religion to Magicism. Amen...
Quote from: Revils on March 14, 2013, 10:29:55 AM
if there is no religion and people doesnt believe in a supreme being, there will be chaos. People will no longer have fear to do evil stuff like killing, rape, stealing etc..
The bible advocates some pretty horrible things. To suggest that it is a moral standard and the reason that we don't kill each other is preposterous. "The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully." - Dawkins
Fear is not the reason people don't do things. Most people well faced with a "deterrent" figure they will not get caught and sentenced.
I also find this a kind of dangerous thought too, since you have demonstrated a low regard for your fellow species. As if a book written during the iron age by superstitious, unknown men could somehow have anything to say about how humans should govern their lives. It is illogical - no such document can exist. It is not consistent with human experience.
We don't need a book to tell us killing is wrong.
I always thought God told the Israelites to wipe out the Canaanites not because of race, but heart. After all, some Hittite women married into Juda. And a few are even the ancestors of king David and king Solomon. And God loved them
Oh. And that means there are Canaanites in Jesus's earthly heritage
@Dudecore
Quoting Dawkins is like quoting someone who read the last page of a book to give you a summary. He takes things out of context and does not give you the full story nor the comprehensive information to understand the entire situation he is condemning.
One example is the flood. The bible is clear that the people were warned. It took Noah 100 years to build it all the while telling the people what was coming. In the end the people continued in their wicked ways which is why the flood was brought to begin with.
God condemns evil. If you disregard that like you disregard rules from your parents there are consequences. It is no different. People can try to skew that how they like but doesn't change that fact in Christianity.
We don't need to get into a long debate here but my point is if you want to debate, you can't use arguments that are made without full context.
Quote from: NyghtHawk on March 14, 2013, 01:16:38 PM
@Dudecore
Quoting Dawkins is like quoting someone who read the last page of a book to give you a summary. He takes things out of context and does not give you the full story nor the comprehensive information to understand the entire situation he is condemning.
What context? I've actually read the bible, it isn't out of context.
QuoteOne example is the flood. The bible is clear that the people were warned. It took Noah 100 years to build it all the while telling the people what was coming. In the end the people continued in their wicked ways which is why the flood was brought to begin with.
I don't understand the concept of "wicked". That concept has changed and evolved over the years, wha could anyone doing that could possibly warrant the erasure of life? And a man built an ark for 100 years? If you say it is an allegory the Bible has a bone to pick with you. It is the literal word of god, everything in the bible happened. If and when you choose which laws you abide by you are in violation of the bible. You take it all or you take none.
QuoteGod condemns evil. If you disregard that like you disregard rules from your parents there are consequences. It is no different. People can try to skew that how they like but doesn't change that fact in Christianity.
Again, I don't know what the word "evil" implies, or that god even understands the concept. And disregarding "rules" from your parents, do they know the infinite? They're people who gave birth to you, they're not all knowing or all-powerful. Parents can, and often are, wrong when it comes to matters of an individuals rights to person. Just because some million people would yield cognitive liberty to ancient mystism does not make it ok. We'd be fine today if we did or did not believe in the god of Abraham.
QuoteWe don't need to get into a long debate here but my point is if you want to debate, you can't use arguments that are made without full context.
I can and will continue to do so, and I will quote the context of those statements at length if it would prove a point. Which it will not.
The bible was written by man and people are not infallible. The bible has a great moral code, and there are lessons to be learned from the stories written within. But to believe the earth is only a couple thousand years old? Clearly innacurate but the people of the time had nothing to base this information on other than they're undeniable faith. It used to make sense.
I could go on with endless errors that can be found within the bibles pages, however that shouldn't take away from the moral lessons being taught through these stories.
If you were to sum up all those lessons into a short concise guide line it would basically say this;
"Be a good person to others and yourself...but to others, more so..." Lol
Think the next pipe will be Irish, and drunk all The time,
FATHER JACK FOR POPE
Uncle drew for pope...
Peace, young bloods...
Lmfao
Wasn't the earth around before the creation? He created the earth even before he said "let there be light."
Quote from: Double-O-Scotch on March 14, 2013, 03:25:41 PM
The bible was written by man and people are not infallible. The bible has a great moral code, and there are lessons to be learned from the stories written within. But to believe the earth is only a couple thousand years old? Clearly innacurate but the people of the time had nothing to base this information on other than they're undeniable faith. It used to make sense.
I could go on with endless errors that can be found within the bibles pages, however that shouldn't take away from the moral lessons being taught through these stories.
If you were to sum up all those lessons into a short concise guide line it would basically say this;
"Be a good person to others and yourself...but to others, more so..." Lol
Again, I don't think we need a book to tell us that cooperation, respect for property and person are adequate ways for us to spend our time together here on earth. That is ingrained within us because humans are a social animal, no social animals kill wantonly and rape indiscriminately because they don't believe in the god of Abraham. Cooperation is necessary for the passing on of our genes, we wouldn't devolve tomorrow when we find out that god isn't real.
The New Testament drives itself on Jesus being a good person and for us all to love one another. While in principle it is always fundimentally a good idea. The Old Testament is loaded with dogmatic, barbaric, draconian laws that concern themselves with the clothes you wear, the foods you eat, the animals you sacrifice, the people you associate yourself with and whom you see naked. Like I said, it was written by superstitious, paranoid, uneducated, males during the Iron Age - when the wheel barrow would have been emerging technology.
I don't have a problem with anyone believing, as I couldn't change that opinion if I had a millennia and all of the philosophical and logical arguments to the contrary. It's just the assumption by believers that the bible somehow is the final authority on wisdom and "the good life". Like we'd be lost without its wonderful lessons. I clearly beg to differ.
Good argument dudecore.
It was also written at a time were people were superstitious and ritualistic. And when human sacrifice was just as accepted as abortion is today. Moses was writing to a people who had been burdened also by the most powerful empire at the time, and that should be taken into account too
Quote from: Dudecore on March 14, 2013, 03:54:09 PM
Quote from: Double-O-Scotch on March 14, 2013, 03:25:41 PM
The bible was written by man and people are not infallible. The bible has a great moral code, and there are lessons to be learned from the stories written within. But to believe the earth is only a couple thousand years old? Clearly innacurate but the people of the time had nothing to base this information on other than they're undeniable faith. It used to make sense.
I could go on with endless errors that can be found within the bibles pages, however that shouldn't take away from the moral lessons being taught through these stories.
If you were to sum up all those lessons into a short concise guide line it would basically say this;
"Be a good person to others and yourself...but to others, more so..." Lol
That is ingrained within us because humans are a social animal,
So what you're saying is humans could be green?
Quote from: Mikefrompluto on March 14, 2013, 04:07:49 PM
Quote from: Dudecore on March 14, 2013, 03:54:09 PM
Quote from: Double-O-Scotch on March 14, 2013, 03:25:41 PM
The bible was written by man and people are not infallible. The bible has a great moral code, and there are lessons to be learned from the stories written within. But to believe the earth is only a couple thousand years old? Clearly innacurate but the people of the time had nothing to base this information on other than they're undeniable faith. It used to make sense.
I could go on with endless errors that can be found within the bibles pages, however that shouldn't take away from the moral lessons being taught through these stories.
If you were to sum up all those lessons into a short concise guide line it would basically say this;
"Be a good person to others and yourself...but to others, more so..." Lol
That is ingrained within us because humans are a social animal,
So what you're saying is humans could be green?
Well the magic color pie is based around emotional mind states that humans occupy - that is how we're able to relate to the colors. Humans are {W}{U}{B}{R}{G}.
I know. I was trying to bring humor to a tricky conversation than can get out of hand pretty quickly.
Just curious what's the philosophy behind the green humans? I think I know already. I just want to check my understanding of it and see if its askew
Quote from: Dudecore on March 14, 2013, 03:54:09 PM
Quote from: Double-O-Scotch on March 14, 2013, 03:25:41 PM
The bible was written by man and people are not infallible. The bible has a great moral code, and there are lessons to be learned from the stories written within. But to believe the earth is only a couple thousand years old? Clearly innacurate but the people of the time had nothing to base this information on other than they're undeniable faith. It used to make sense.
I could go on with endless errors that can be found within the bibles pages, however that shouldn't take away from the moral lessons being taught through these stories.
If you were to sum up all those lessons into a short concise guide line it would basically say this;
"Be a good person to others and yourself...but to others, more so..." Lol
Again, I don't think we need a book to tell us that cooperation, respect for property and person are adequate ways for us to spend our time together here on earth. That is ingrained within us because humans are a social animal, no social animals kill wantonly and rape indiscriminately because they don't believe in the god of Abraham. Cooperation is necessary for the passing on of our genes, we wouldn't devolve tomorrow when we find out that god isn't real.
The New Testament drives itself on Jesus being a good person and for us all to love one another. While in principle it is always fundimentally a good idea. The Old Testament is loaded with dogmatic, barbaric, draconian laws that concern themselves with the clothes you wear, the foods you eat, the animals you sacrifice, the people you associate yourself with and whom you see naked. Like I said, it was written by superstitious, paranoid, uneducated, males during the Iron Age - when the wheel barrow would have been emerging technology.
And I beg to differ. You give people too much credit. Like one of my favorite sayings goes "why is common sense so uncommon?" You're right that we shouldn't need a book to tell us the difference between good and evil, but alot of people are just plain dumb. I for one am glad there is a book with a moral guideline out there. In a world utterly becoming dark, I think we, as a species, can use all the help we can get. Would I use it to teach science class? No. But I have also read the bible front to back (except for psalms, I got a 1/3 of the way through and felt I'd repeated myself a couple times and assuming the rest was the same, I skipped ahead), and I have to admit, it's great story telling. There's a plot, a moral, and a timeline. Not much for comic relief ( vast oversight!)
The trick is to understand the context with which it was written.
The Old Testament predates the New Testament. (Of course) but that also means it predates the Roman Empire. The world was essentially without rules. The rules that existed for the most part were simply the whims of the conquerors and royalty. Usually both. Your average Joe couldn't read or write, had little to no education save those learned by their trade.
The New Testament has to be examined slightly different. It was started during roman rule. When EVERYONE was either Roman, an enemy of Rome, or a roman slave(or soon to be) the Romans were quite religiously tolerant. But this was a religion of slaves. It was unbecoming to even consider the gospel truth. Now that slowly changed as Christianity began to conquer the empire from within. Shortly thereafter the empire fell (a lesson to be learned I think)
The two chapters (old and new t.) were written during a time so brutal I can neither explain or truly know the sufferings and reality of living it. Nobody can (maybe Doc Brown). To diss it saying its useless is insulting. To live by every word written within is useless. As with all books, it is a tool. Like a gun. It's how that tool is utilized that ultimately determines good and evil action. Which is what the bible is attempting to explain.
I was raised Roman Catholic. It's safe to say that my blasphemous attitude prohibits me from continuing to be so and I'm ok with that. After all, the Vatican condoned the actions of the Nazi's through inaction. They have flip-flopped on the condom issue. They are centered in a city Jesus likely never went to (unproven) they continue the Judaism/Christianity/Islam argument over which millions have been killed and still can't agree over which one is the prophet, which one is the son, and whether he even showed up yet. Like 10 year olds arguing who's dad can beat up who's.
I have alot of faith.
I believe that the universe is too amazing to simply be a random occurrence.
But I take no stock in religion.
Religion is the undoing of faith, seeking only obedience and compliance.
Quote from: Double-O-Scotch on March 14, 2013, 04:43:37 PM
Quote from: Dudecore on March 14, 2013, 03:54:09 PM
Quote from: Double-O-Scotch on March 14, 2013, 03:25:41 PM
The bible was written by man and people are not infallible. The bible has a great moral code, and there are lessons to be learned from the stories written within. But to believe the earth is only a couple thousand years old? Clearly innacurate but the people of the time had nothing to base this information on other than they're undeniable faith. It used to make sense.
I could go on with endless errors that can be found within the bibles pages, however that shouldn't take away from the moral lessons being taught through these stories.
If you were to sum up all those lessons into a short concise guide line it would basically say this;
"Be a good person to others and yourself...but to others, more so..." Lol
Again, I don't think we need a book to tell us that cooperation, respect for property and person are adequate ways for us to spend our time together here on earth. That is ingrained within us because humans are a social animal, no social animals kill wantonly and rape indiscriminately because they don't believe in the god of Abraham. Cooperation is necessary for the passing on of our genes, we wouldn't devolve tomorrow when we find out that god isn't real.
The New Testament drives itself on Jesus being a good person and for us all to love one another. While in principle it is always fundimentally a good idea. The Old Testament is loaded with dogmatic, barbaric, draconian laws that concern themselves with the clothes you wear, the foods you eat, the animals you sacrifice, the people you associate yourself with and whom you see naked. Like I said, it was written by superstitious, paranoid, uneducated, males during the Iron Age - when the wheel barrow would have been emerging technology.
I have alot of faith.
I believe that the universe is too amazing to simply be a random occurrence.
But I take no stock in religion.
Religion is the undoing of faith, seeking only obedience and compliance.
On a more serious note, this is more or less how I feel. It is possible to get into heaven without claiming a religion and following a book. I just try to put as much good into the world as I can without any expectation of a return.
I also have a very anti-authoritarian personality and belief system. Religion doesn't exactly fall into line with that. Im going to not do something because I don't want to bring harm to myself or others, not because someone says "don't do that."
Quote from: Birdbrain on March 14, 2013, 04:30:29 PM
Just curious what's the philosophy behind the green humans? I think I know already. I just want to check my understanding of it and see if its askew
guess no one is going to tell me?
Quote from: Birdbrain on March 14, 2013, 05:24:12 PM
Quote from: Birdbrain on March 14, 2013, 04:30:29 PM
Just curious what's the philosophy behind the green humans? I think I know already. I just want to check my understanding of it and see if its askew
guess no one is going to tell me?
Patience. Someone will probably come along and give you an answer, but its only been an hour since you initially asked the question.
{G} humans? Natural law. Like the Druids.
{B} humans? Not going there
{U} humans? The scholars. Knowledge
{R} humans? Not going there
{W} humans? Not going there
That's my general interpretation, though.
Also, the first official bible wasn't around until sometime in the 400's, at the Council of Nicea, which determined which scriptures would make up the bible, and also established the divinity of Christ (up to that point He had been considered as a prophet)
Also, another good reading is the book "A History of God" by Karen Armstrong. I won't go into details here because it might start a war in here... Lol
Quote from: rarehuntertay on March 14, 2013, 05:47:59 PM
Also, the first official bible wasn't around until sometime in the 400's, at the Council of Nicea, which determined which scriptures would make up the bible, and also established the divinity of Christ (up to that point He had been considered as a prophet)
Also, another good reading is the book "A History of God" by Karen Armstrong. I won't go into details here because it might start a war in here... Lol
The war has been raging for millennia...lol...but I get what ur saying...
Quote from: Double-O-Scotch on March 14, 2013, 05:42:10 PM
{G} humans? Natural law. Like the Druids.
{B} humans? Not going there
{U} humans? The scholars. Knowledge
{R} humans? Not going there
{W} humans? Not going there
That's my general interpretation, though.
thank you.
Quote from: rarehuntertay on March 14, 2013, 05:47:59 PM
Also, the first official bible wasn't around until sometime in the 400's, at the Council of Nicea, which determined which scriptures would make up the bible, and also established the divinity of Christ (up to that point He had been considered as a prophet)
Also, another good reading is the book "A History of God" by Karen Armstrong. I won't go into details here because it might start a war in here... Lol
Thats actually not true. They did not discuss biblical canon or the divinity of Christ.
Quote from: Dudecore on March 14, 2013, 02:22:25 PM
Quote from: NyghtHawk on March 14, 2013, 01:16:38 PM
@Dudecore
Quoting Dawkins is like quoting someone who read the last page of a book to give you a summary. He takes things out of context and does not give you the full story nor the comprehensive information to understand the entire situation he is condemning.
What context? I've actually read the bible, it isn't out of context.
QuoteOne example is the flood. The bible is clear that the people were warned. It took Noah 100 years to build it all the while telling the people what was coming. In the end the people continued in their wicked ways which is why the flood was brought to begin with.
I don't understand the concept of "wicked". That concept has changed and evolved over the years, wha could anyone doing that could possibly warrant the erasure of life? And a man built an ark for 100 years? If you say it is an allegory the Bible has a bone to pick with you. It is the literal word of god, everything in the bible happened. If and when you choose which laws you abide by you are in violation of the bible. You take it all or you take none.
QuoteGod condemns evil. If you disregard that like you disregard rules from your parents there are consequences. It is no different. People can try to skew that how they like but doesn't change that fact in Christianity.
Again, I don't know what the word "evil" implies, or that god even understands the concept. And disregarding "rules" from your parents, do they know the infinite? They're people who gave birth to you, they're not all knowing or all-powerful. Parents can, and often are, wrong when it comes to matters of an individuals rights to person. Just because some million people would yield cognitive liberty to ancient mystism does not make it ok. We'd be fine today if we did or did not believe in the god of Abraham.
QuoteWe don't need to get into a long debate here but my point is if you want to debate, you can't use arguments that are made without full context.
I can and will continue to do so, and I will quote the context of those statements at length if it would prove a point. Which it will not.
Dawkins absolutely takes things out of context. He
Not sure what you mean because I never said the Bible is an allegory or that I personally dont believe it all. It is a believe all or believe none. Take it or leave it.
It did take Noah appx 100 years. Give or take. Could be 75 years, irrelevant. We dont know for sure because it doesnt say but if you reference the dates given in the Bible it is approximated that its around that amount of time.
My point about parents was to make an analogy to what would be the general experience between a parent and child. You are getting into something irrelevant to the point when you say parents can be wrong. No kidding, but that wasnt the point.
Now when you talk about evil, we are talking about the Bible and God in the Bible. It absolutely shows there is a difference between good and evil. Personal opinions aside, the God of the old and new testament absolutely codemns evil.
Thanks for keeping things so civil in this thread guys. I have to say I appreciate double-o-scotch's perspective particularly. I do beg to differ on some harsh words about religion. I can try to use my beliefs to improve the world but it's through the unified effort of a group of people that great things are accomplished. I think religion is vilified because groups of people inevitably grow exclusive but that doesn't negate the good they do. It just makes it harder let to see.
As for Dawkins, he is simply an atheist fundamentalist. He's very similar to religious conservatives who argue from a Biblical perspective which, in my opinion, is the only system of thought as incomplete and faith based as science is. They should all lighten up and have a good laugh over the limits if their knowledge.
Here is my view on Catholicism.
It has done some wonderful things, and helped a lot of people earthly needs wise. And there are a lot of Catholics that are realy good people. And they hold to the gospel in there sermons
Though, to me (and this is only from what I've seen) it seems they say repetitive sayings and have lots of different rituals they do. And I feel like you can't realy get up and dance in the isles if I feel like it when there singing praises. Also, I feel like its all about the rituals, because those took up most of the service
On the opposite end of the spectrum. The baptists to me seem too focused on the freedom part of it. And even though you could probably get up and dance in the isles, or shout praise during there songs. They seem too narrow sighted, and a lot of there sermons are the same thing. And they use emotions, even the hellfire brimstone ones use emotions. And it seems that is what they are all about
I could be wrong and off base though. So forgive me if I am
First of all, I Pastor two Non-Denominational churches in NY and I love Mtg. I agree with some of the above comments and disagree with others. I really think its great we have these conversations and I applaud everyone for being so civil and open. The thread originally started about the Pope, so that is what I will comment on.
The office of Pope, in my opinion, was a mistake to begin with. One man leadership, such as kings, czars, emperors, popes, etc., has historically always led too trouble. The early church didn't function on one person leadership, they had the Apostles and the Elders to make doctrinal decisions. When a problem or schism would arise, the elders and Apostles would convene and come to a consensus among them. Paul or Peter didn't have the final say, the group did.
However, for some reason people like to have kings. Elder eventually turned into Bishop, Bishop eventually turned into Pope. Although I am the Pastor of 2 churches, I am also just an elder with other men in both churches. All major decisions and plans run through that council, and if I am out-voted, I accept it. The point is that all leadership needs accountability be it from religion to government. I need the elders to keep me check just in case I go nuts and decide to go Jim Jones on everyone. The same reason we need congress to keep our presidents from turning into dictators.
A new Pope? Well, I will just contiue to pray for the Catholic Church.
Quote from: rarehuntertay on March 14, 2013, 05:47:59 PM
Also, the first official bible wasn't around until sometime in the 400's, at the Council of Nicea, which determined which scriptures would make up the bible, and also established the divinity of Christ (up to that point He had been considered as a prophet)
Also, another good reading is the book "A History of God" by Karen Armstrong. I won't go into details here because it might start a war in here... Lol
This is wrong FYI, hate to be that guy, but the first official bible for Christians was written in Greek during the time Rome forbid the believe of Christ, they executed people for it. During the 400's or maybe even a bit sooner is when it became an open established religion.... When Rome fell to the Germanic barbarians, Romulus' death. Best way to have a regime change stick is to allow the people freedom of believe. And even at that, the Old Testament was orginally written in Arabic since u know, Jews and all
Freerthanu. What's your view on Christianity?. Not trying to start something. Just want to hear a nutshell below from a pastor
Birdbrain: could you narrow that question down some? Like something specific?
Quote from: Freerthanu on March 15, 2013, 09:22:54 AM
Birdbrain: could you narrow that question down some? Like something specific?
some of the people on here have been saying what they belive about God. And how they view religion, and are just summing up what they belive in a few paragraphs. That's what I mean. And please don't quote scripture in your explanation. It only shuts non-believers out
Birdbrain: It is very difficult to sum up my belief in a few paragraphs, but I will try.
I believe in God, I believe in Jesus Christ and I believe in the Holy Spirit. I believe in the bible and I do my best to live up to its truths, although I stumble, fall and fail on a daily basis. I believe in these things because of my personal relationship I have with God, through Jesus Christ. My personal sins kept me from God, but because of the sacrifice of Christ, I have access to my Father on a daily basis. Gods intent for mankind was a relationship, not a religion. To quote a famous writer " I am just a beggar showing other beggars where I found my bread."
I believe in the church as an organism, not as an organization. The church was meant to be living, loving and humble, not rigid, cold and self-righteous. Because of our inward sin nature, we have corrupted the church, not too mention every other aspect of human life. It is my goal as a Pastor to keep the church real , meaning making it about people, not about policies or .politics..
Quote from: Dudecore on March 14, 2013, 11:58:13 AM
Quote from: Revils on March 14, 2013, 10:29:55 AM
if there is no religion and people doesnt believe in a supreme being, there will be chaos. People will no longer have fear to do evil stuff like killing, rape, stealing etc..
The bible advocates some pretty horrible things. To suggest that it is a moral standard and the reason that we don't kill each other is preposterous. "The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully." - Dawkins
Fear is not the reason people don't do things. Most people well faced with a "deterrent" figure they will not get caught and sentenced.
I also find this a kind of dangerous thought too, since you have demonstrated a low regard for your fellow species. As if a book written during the iron age by superstitious, unknown men could somehow have anything to say about how humans should govern their lives. It is illogical - no such document can exist. It is not consistent with human experience.
We don't need a book to tell us killing is wrong.
I respect everybody's opinion cause we are different people,maybe because I grew up in a catholic community, and what I said was a factor I think . And have you read the whole bible or just the bad parts that you stated? I think there's always a consequence and a warning before god does all the stuff that you stated. And if you and Dawkins have the same concept when it comes to your beliefs i respect that.
Quote from: Revils on March 16, 2013, 03:38:33 AM
Quote from: Dudecore on March 14, 2013, 11:58:13 AM
Quote from: Revils on March 14, 2013, 10:29:55 AM
if there is no religion and people doesnt believe in a supreme being, there will be chaos. People will no longer have fear to do evil stuff like killing, rape, stealing etc..
The bible advocates some pretty horrible things. To suggest that it is a moral standard and the reason that we don't kill each other is preposterous. "The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully." - Dawkins
Fear is not the reason people don't do things. Most people well faced with a "deterrent" figure they will not get caught and sentenced.
I also find this a kind of dangerous thought too, since you have demonstrated a low regard for your fellow species. As if a book written during the iron age by superstitious, unknown men could somehow have anything to say about how humans should govern their lives. It is illogical - no such document can exist. It is not consistent with human experience.
We don't need a book to tell us killing is wrong.
I respect everybody's opinion cause we are different people,maybe because I grew up in a catholic community, and what I said was a factor I think . And have you read the whole bible or just the bad parts that you stated? I think there's always a consequence and a warning before god does all the stuff that you stated. And if you and Dawkins have the same concept when it comes to your beliefs i respect that.
I've read the whole bible, that is how I know that the bible is supposed to be the literal word of god. I quote one Dawkins thing out of convenience and now that sums up my whole argument? I feel like no one has even read what I've been saying and just go "oh, Dawkins" then scan to the file in your brain where all the "dismiss Dawkins" arguments are.
My problems with the bible are not "opinions". And opinion would mean that without research, sources, and conjecture, something I "value" without evidence. I have the bible as a resource to show how bad THE BIBLE is.
Moving the goal posts is a common occurrence in Internet arguments. I've been doing this too long to care at all.
Edit: also, what Dawkins work has anyone ever read? What is out of context? I don't get it. I've seen Christian anti-Dawkins websites that say the same thing, and counter all of his arguments with "god is all powerful and works in mysterious ways" as a way to no answer the questions. Ad hominem attacks a fair bit of "na na na na, foo foo"
Dudecore: Totally agree with you about Internet arguments. We lose so much when we print our thoughts, innuendo, sarcasm, humor, etc., these aspects of our conversation become lost. Arguing with someone over the web is like trying to grasp wind.
I have never read any of Dawkins writings, so I will not comment on what he has written. I will say from my personal experience that the Bible was and is a perpetual blessing in my life.
Quote from: Piotr on March 14, 2013, 09:24:37 AM
Quote from: NyghtHawk on March 13, 2013, 10:15:25 PM
Quote from: Milo109 on March 13, 2013, 10:06:15 PM
Quote from: Piotr on March 13, 2013, 03:50:43 PM
No idea why religions get so much hate these days. I personally believe in religions (as in, they are generally a very good thing to have), not so much in God.
I utterly disagree. So many horrible things have been committed in the name of religion. In addition religion obscures truth IMHO. Where has religion been beneficial to humanity? If the church had their way, we would never have had any scientific advances..
Terrible things have been done in the name of many things. That has nothing to do with the religion itself, for instance. Do most Christians agree with things like the Crusades and what has been done in the name of Christianity? No. Lets me serious here. Humans are human. Just because people use something to further their OWN cause does not mean that whatever they are using to justify their cause was meant to be used that way.
Its like people saying that video games caused them to go kill people in real life. They can use that excuse, but is that the actual purpose of video games? Absolutely not. Just because you use something as an excuse doesnt make it valid.
Well said.
Religion is just a tool, like knife or aircraft carrier. Probably all tools can be used to do evil things. Religion is a nice tool to have, if only for the fact that it provides moral code enforced by ultimate power. It helped humanity to solve 'prisoner's dilemma', without religion it would be near to impossible to run societies when CSI technology wasn't invented yet.
Also, 'If the church had their way, we would never have had any scientific advances.' is a very obvious lie, so please be careful.
That's true but western organized religion as a whole as an entity has and continues to commit atrocities. You are right that religion is a tool, but it is being misused. In addition religion is the antithesis of logic. Religion asks you to put faith in something without any logic behind it. And Piotr, I'm going to have to disagree with you. While my sentence was hyperbolic, the premise is true. Organized religion on a whole has tried to suppress things that disagreed with it. That included many scientific advances. The fact that belief in the bible and science can co exist at all is amazing. While this post is also hyperbolic, I belief it to be true.
Quote from: Milo109 on March 17, 2013, 12:40:27 AM
Quote from: Piotr on March 14, 2013, 09:24:37 AM
Quote from: NyghtHawk on March 13, 2013, 10:15:25 PM
Quote from: Milo109 on March 13, 2013, 10:06:15 PM
Quote from: Piotr on March 13, 2013, 03:50:43 PM
No idea why religions get so much hate these days. I personally believe in religions (as in, they are generally a very good thing to have), not so much in God.
I utterly disagree. So many horrible things have been committed in the name of religion. In addition religion obscures truth IMHO. Where has religion been beneficial to humanity? If the church had their way, we would never have had any scientific advances..
Terrible things have been done in the name of many things. That has nothing to do with the religion itself, for instance. Do most Christians agree with things like the Crusades and what has been done in the name of Christianity? No. Lets me serious here. Humans are human. Just because people use something to further their OWN cause does not mean that whatever they are using to justify their cause was meant to be used that way.
Its like people saying that video games caused them to go kill people in real life. They can use that excuse, but is that the actual purpose of video games? Absolutely not. Just because you use something as an excuse doesnt make it valid.
Well said.
Religion is just a tool, like knife or aircraft carrier. Probably all tools can be used to do evil things. Religion is a nice tool to have, if only for the fact that it provides moral code enforced by ultimate power. It helped humanity to solve 'prisoner's dilemma', without religion it would be near to impossible to run societies when CSI technology wasn't invented yet.
Also, 'If the church had their way, we would never have had any scientific advances.' is a very obvious lie, so please be careful.
That's true but western organized religion as a whole as an entity has and continues to commit atrocities. You are right that religion is a tool, but it is being misused. In addition religion is the antithesis of logic. Religion asks you to put faith in something without any logic behind it. And Piotr, I'm going to have to disagree with you. While my sentence was hyperbolic, the premise is true. Organized religion on a whole has tried to suppress things that disagreed with it. That included many scientific advances. The fact that belief in the bible and science can co exist at all is amazing. While this post is also hyperbolic, I belief it to be true.
1. What "atrocities" does Western Religion as a whole commit today?
2. Many of our most beloved scientists were Christian. Ever hear of Sir Isaac Newton?
3. Has the secular government ever tried to "suppress" anything or any "scientific advances"?
4. Have you ever tried and listened to a modern day Christian Scientist? Try Dr. Ken Haam.
Its very easy for non- christians to knock religion, but I doubt most of them have ever tried to look at both sides of the issue and research Creationism or Intelligent Design, which there are thousands of scientists who believe in them.
I'm catholic bro!
It's all cool.
Quote from: Freerthanu on March 17, 2013, 06:54:59 AM
1. What "atrocities" does Western Religion as a whole commit today?
- The new pope, "Francis," cooperated with the bloody Argentine military dictatorship from 1975-1983. He is a fascist, human rights abuser and enabler. He is also a homophobe, against same-sex marriage, against abortion, as well as being on the wrong side of history regarding many critical issues. A relic of a time well past.
- Denial of condom use in africa, contributing to the spread of AIDs.
- The large scale matter of child rape, which was actively and knowingly covered up by the former pope. It was one of the largest obstruction of justice cases in the history of the world - and no one was arrested or prosecuted.
- Continued denial of atrocities that are meet only with silence by the Catholic Church. Their sins absolved, and in some cases - people are given asylum.
Quote
2. Many of our most beloved scientists were Christian. Ever hear of Sir Isaac Newton?
Just because a scientist believes in god is not evidence for its existence. It makes no claims that it is an even worthy idea. People can be scientists and have other faulty ideas. Sir Isaac Newton is not the Übermensch.
Quote3. Has the secular government ever tried to "suppress" anything or any "scientific advances"?
To this, I'll half heartily agree. The Catholic Church has been particularly good at adopting new medicine and condoning its use (with the exception of the condom thinf). They don't offer that you "pray" as an alternative for cancer treatment. That being said - the church's official stance is that evolution isn't real, the earth is only 5,000 years old and Jesus was a real person.
As with most religions. People believe what they want. To some the idea of a "kill your neighbor for working on the sabbath" is silly, to others - it's in the bible, the literal word of god
.The thing is secular governments are awful, terrible things that have to go. Every government has to go. That is a seperate argument. The thing is that a "secular" government includes religious people - which is why stem cell research was stifled. Also, a "secular" government (which does not exist) does things because that's what the people want, not because they're "secular".
Quote
4. Have you ever tried and listened to a modern day Christian Scientist? Try Dr. Ken Haam.
What realm of science does Christian Science occupy? Sounds not like science to me...
QuoteIts very easy for non- christians to knock religion, but I doubt most of them have ever tried to look at both sides of the issue and research Creationism or Intelligent Design, which there are thousands of scientists who believe in them.
Thousands of people supported slavery, genocide, imperialism and worse. We cannot form a proper basis of opinion of anything based on what the popular opinion is. Creationism and Intelligent Design is not science.
I think there is a fundamental problem with respect for evidence. If we have to form a basis for belief, we can say what you would about science - you can move the goal posts so that you can say "what is proof?" - you can say "I believe it and no one can say I'm wrong" - but at the end of the day: what couldn't you do that with? If you exhibit a lack of respect for evidence in the face of god, I can just change the name and do it myself.
The simple fact that you can prove something without evidence, allows me to disprove it without evidence. And visa versa. So without a respect for evidence, we wouldn't have anything but "gut" instincts, which are not quantifiable.
Quote from: Dudecore on March 17, 2013, 08:50:02 AM
As with most religions. People believe what they want. To some the idea of a "kill your neighbor for working on the sabbath" is silly, to others - it's in the bible, the literal word of god
There a lot of highly questionable statements in your post, can you provide proof for that one for a start, please?
Quote from: Piotr on March 17, 2013, 09:04:48 AM
Quote from: Dudecore on March 17, 2013, 08:50:02 AM
As with most religions. People believe what they want. To some the idea of a "kill your neighbor for working on the sabbath" is silly, to others - it's in the bible, the literal word of god
There a lot of highly questionable statements in your post, can you provide proof for that one for a start, please?
Exodus 31:15 "For six days work is to be done, but the seventh day is a day of sabbath rest, holy to the Lord. Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day is to be put to death."
Exodus 35:2 "Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a Sabbath of rest to the Lord; whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death."
Dudecore: Thanks for replying. I am in church right now, so please be patient with my response time.
Personaly, I find it doubtful that evelution is real
Take for instance, the humble strawberry plant. It does not reproduce with seeds. It reproduces with shoots. So that brings the questions up...where did the first strawberry come from?
Also, lets say strings do exist, what is the energy there made of made of? With that, any awnser the scientists come up with another question can be asked and so its basically an endless rabbit hole were they will always have to come up with more hypotheses.
And dudecore. First of all, I agree with you that that commandment is very messed up, but lets look at the context The old testimant was written to a stubborn people. At least that's what Jesus said about the marriage issue when it was brought to him. To a people that disobeyed God on the foot of mount Zion or wherever they were. Moses needed to help them not stray from God, or something like that
Quote from: Birdbrain on March 17, 2013, 09:39:12 AM
Personaly, I find it doubtful that evelution is real
Take for instance, the humble strawberry plant. It does not reproduce with seeds. It reproduces with shoots. So that brings the questions up...where did the first strawberry come from?
Also, lets say strings do exist, what is the energy there made of made of? With that, any awnser the scientists come up with another question can be asked and so its basically an endless rabbit hole were they will always have to come up with more hypotheses.
And dudecore. First of all, I agree with you that that commandment is very messed up, but lets look at the context The old testimant was written to a stubborn people. At least that's what Jesus said about the marriage issue when it was brought to him. To a people that disobeyed God on the foot of mount Zion or wherever they were. Moses needed to help them not stray from God, or something like that
I think that one single instance that you are misinformed about (where strawberrys come from) shouldn't lead you to throwing away the mountains and mountains of evidence confirming observable evolution and the buildings full of fossil records we have.
Also, what is more infinitely reduction then "god"? If he created everything, who created him? Then who created that thing? The most common answer I hear is "well he was always there". Then I'm asked about the Big Bang "who put the energy there?" I respond "it was always there" then, without fail "no, that's crazy." --- it's the exact same thing!!
(http://imgace.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/evolution-is-just-a-theory.jpg)
Quote from: Birdbrain on March 17, 2013, 09:39:12 AM
Personaly, I find it doubtful that evelution is real
Take for instance, the humble strawberry plant. It does not reproduce with seeds.
Lie: https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=strawberry+seeds&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
Humanity's quest for knowledge must be built on our ability to identify "what are the things we don't understand?", and searching for those answers. We can do that by finding, analyzing and observing real life events and evidence. We shouldn't have the luxury that religious people do: invent the answers and claim they're unquestionably true. We would still be praying for the plague to stop if not for certain observable principles about the way disease is spread.
Disproving or casting doubt on one theory does nothing to establish the truth of another - EVEN IF you can prove to me that evolution does not exist, you're not one micron closer to convincing me that "god did it". Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. As I stated before; if you can prove something without evidence, I can disprove it without evidence.
If I started making outlandish claims about the origins of the universe and insist that my theory be taken seriously by scientists, they'll require me to support my assertions and offer physical and mathematical proof. Because to do otherwise would mean that every such claim be taken on the same merit. What about Intelligent Design/Creationism doesn't make those same unfounded claims? Until such proofs exist, we must keep searching, and we'll be more than happy to utter the three words that keep scientific progress (and all human progress) moving forward: "I don't know".
Very well said. And I agree with you on that. And will just agree to disagree.
I'm also not sure there is any proof that God doesn't exist. So saying he doesn't exist is too an outlandish claim
Quote from: Birdbrain on March 17, 2013, 10:12:26 AM
Very well said. And I agree with you on that. And will just agree to disagree.
I'm also not sure there is any proof that God doesn't exist. So saying he doesn't exist is too an outlandish claim
I never claimed he didn't exist, I just said there is no evidence. I don't spend my time disproving werewolves, vampires, pink unicorns or anything else without evidence. Those are matters that do not concern me. Until evidence exists for god, then I'll worry about it.
Quote from: Dudecore on March 17, 2013, 10:16:01 AM
Quote from: Birdbrain on March 17, 2013, 10:12:26 AM
Very well said. And I agree with you on that. And will just agree to disagree.
I'm also not sure there is any proof that God doesn't exist. So saying he doesn't exist is too an outlandish claim
I never claimed he didn't exist, I just said there is no evidence. I don't spend my time disproving werewolves, vampires, pink unicorns or anything else without evidence. Those are matters that do not concern me. Until evidence exists for god, then I'll worry about it.
ok, Sorry for being an ass than. After all, assuming makes an ass out of u and me
And you have an interesting viewpoint on things, and its been fun looking at your perspective
Quote from: Birdbrain on March 17, 2013, 10:12:26 AM
Very well said. And I agree with you on that. And will just agree to disagree.
I'm also not sure there is any proof that God doesn't exist. So saying he doesn't exist is too an outlandish claim
Its not outlandish unless you prove he/she/it exists.
Quote from: Dudecore on March 17, 2013, 09:59:16 AM
Humanity's quest for knowledge must be built on our ability to identify "what are the things we don't understand?", and searching for those answers. We can do that by finding, analyzing and observing real life events and evidence. We shouldn't have the luxury that religious people do: invent the answers and claim they're unquestionably true. We would still be praying for the plague to stop if not for certain observable principles about the way disease is spread.
Disproving or casting doubt on one theory does nothing to establish the truth of another - EVEN IF you can prove to me that evolution does not exist, you're not one micron closer to convincing me that "god did it". Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. As I stated before; if you can prove something without evidence, I can disprove it without evidence.
If I started making outlandish claims about the origins of the universe and insist that my theory be taken seriously by scientists, they'll require me to support my assertions and offer physical and mathematical proof. Because to do otherwise would mean that every such claim be taken on the same merit. What about Intelligent Design/Creationism doesn't make those same unfounded claims? Until such proofs exist, we must keep searching, and we'll be more than happy to utter the three words that keep scientific progress (and all human progress) moving forward: "I don't know".
Russell's teapot is a great example of this. As someone who makes his living in the science field, and hold multiple degrees therein, I tend to agree with what you have said. Any claim that can not be tested, supported, and replicated is lacking foundation. I was raised Southern Baptist but can say from an early age I didn't feel comfortable due to the heavily and unyielding dogma that seemed to have no room for the grey areas that are part of all life.
I would also like to add that this is the 2nd time a serious religious discussion has broken out on these boards. Both times it has been handled with respect and dignity by all sides. I for one and proud to be part of this group, where we seem to truly respect each other's ideas/beliefs regardless of how they conflict with our own. This, to me, is what ultimately proves that humanity has a chance for a brighter future.
I'd like to weigh in here. First off, I agree about the community. I'm proud to be part of a community that can have these kinds of talks/debates and not get out if hand. You guys are great. Second, I have to agree with the statements about evidence. Without evidence, a lot of things are just claims with no weight, regardless of whether or not people believe in it, or how many people believe in it. Plenty of people believe vaccines caused autism, the world was flat, and smoking had no lasting health effects. Only through research and the solidifying of evidence can we truly be sure of things; that's the entire point of evidence. I really dislike having these kinds of debates and hearing the finalizing Christian argument being, "Well, you can't prove god DOESN'T exist". That's your argument? Your gratuitous amount of faith and lifestyle is based on that fact? This is not in reference to anyone here, simply something I've noticed and experienced.
I do have a question for some of you though. It is my understanding there are pastors in this conversation. I ask this: What is the danger in not believing in God?
This question seems a bit ignorant, so let me explain.
I was raised Catholic, and went to Catholic school in my younger years. I was basically told to believe in god or I would go to hell. My question is: Why? He is an omniscient being, yes? This means he knows everything about me. My choices and decisions, why I made them, how I was confronted with them in the first place, etc. I'm led to believe that he is an understanding god, who loves all of his children. How could a loving god, who completely understands why I can't believe in him, and all the reasons why I chose to not believe, send me to Hell, if I was a good person otherwise? If he truly understands, that would seem unjust, and certainly not the action of a loving god. I understand this question may seem harsh, as its always met with "Stop talking like that, it's not very Christian" or "That's not how we raised you". But I ask sincerely. It is a question I've had for a while.
Mind-boggling question keyeto, for which I have no answer, but would love to hear any responses. I've asked the same question myself...
Keyeto,
It is true God knows everything and the choices you will make, but you have to realize He is just. He gives you the opportunity to believe in Him. If you decide not to, that is your choice. Not His. The consequence for not living for Him is clear but that is a choice you make. He doesn't force you to believe, you have free will to chose as you will. If you ask Jesus for forgiveness and to come into your life to guide you in all you do, He will.
I am not Catholic, I am simply a God fearing servant. I go to a Baptist church but denomination is not what is important. The Bible doesn't say good deeds get you to heaven or following religious dogma. Just follow Jesus. That is clear.
Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." John 14:6
To tackle this, you must accept that religion is just a tool, made by people for people. As silly as it sounds, try to separate religion from God. Then you realise that at certain points of history of mankind, the tool evolved and changed to better suit the times, if you will. But in any case, the tool is not able to fit all users. That is why you are asked to shut down parts of your brain to use the tool. There are many people who cannot comprehend stuff anyway, for them the religion is also a blessing.
Religion as a tool provides us with ultimate law and ultimate force to enforce this law. It helps tremendously with running societies. It also gives a lot of people hope and happiness.
Scientific evidence is this: for every bad deed of the Church, there are thousands upon thousands of good deeds. All in all, its a great and very helpful organisation, and so are most of religions.
Keyeto See: the problem of omniscience, the omnipotence paradox, the problem of evil, and determinism.
The concept of free will is slowly being diminished everyday. Soon we may have an understanding of our brains, so vast in fact, thaf we may wonder why we ever thought we had any control over it. Free will is an illusion, it is left over code in our chimp brains to cope with existence.
I am not going to continue that discussion, we had it some time ago and it was difficult to follow and portray on this message board.
Wow is there a lot going on here. First I would like to say also how great this community is. There are no derogatory comments or condescending going on. I believe at this point there are two
equally deserving threads going in here. One about science and one about faith or belief.
I will talk about the science one first. I see no contradiction between science and faith as many scientists throughout history and indeed many today are faithfull Christians. But there are contradictions within secular science today. I believe all contradictions within Christianity are perceived contradictions and not real ones and I would be happy to discuss these.
Let me pose two to those of you who are atheists and cling to science to answer all. The base premise of science is that in order for something to be valid it must be observable and repeatable. That said what do you do with the Big Bang theory? Not observable nor repeatable. And how about the idea that something came from nothing. Never once has it been observed that something came from nothing let alone repeatadly.
Nyght,
I see this a little differently. To me saying "You have the right to chose but it had best be my way" is not a just and loving action. It would be like me putting a gun to your head, demanding all your cards or I will kill you, then saying your refusal is suicide not murder. The one who acts is the one that bears the onus of the action. Just because the guidelines are in place does not make them fair or just. As a parent I can honestly not think of any decisions children could make that would make me want to punish them forever in the most painful way imaginable. Sure, I can see a ton of decisions that they can/will make that I will be completely against but my love for them would never let me punish them in such an extreme manner.
I was also raised Baptist so I can understand the position you are coming from. I just can't balance the scales when I look at the other side. It's the same for the whole "sins of the father" concept. I admire anyone that can hold their faith when they see the other side, I just wish more were like everyone here and realized that it is their faith and not for everyone.
It's my understanding that hell is a separation from God. And if we choose to separate ourselves from him, then we send ourselves there. Not God
This still seems a bit odd to me though. Say I live a good life. I don't murder, I don't steal, and am overall a good person. The only thing is, due to lack of solid proof, I am unable to blindly follow this omnipotent being (the word blindly is not meant to offend, I have no problem with those who do believe in God). That means I don't get into Heaven, and a rapist can simply because he accepted Jesus? That just doesn't seem like a very Just way of doing things. I thought one of the main points if the bible was to instill a moral code in people, that they might live a good, moral life, in addition to believing in god. But not believing completely outweighs the moral life aspect?
My reasoning is this:
Say I'm god. Two people are before me, waiting to get into heaven.
The first is a murderer who believed I exist.
The second lived a good life, and was the best person he could be. He did not believe in me, or my son. I understand why he didn't believe (omniscience), and it makes sense.
The first man gets into paradise over the second, simply for believing? Or am I misunderstanding?
Edit: Wow, there were several posts that happened while I was typing this up. This was intended for what NyghtHawk had said. But is still a question I have in general.
The Big Bang is neither observable nor repeatable...? May I bring your attention to the LHC, CERN?
Quote from: Piotr on March 17, 2013, 01:57:33 PM
To tackle this, you must accept that religion is just a tool, made by people for people. As silly as it sounds, try to separate religion from God. Then you realise that at certain points of history of mankind, the tool evolved and changed to better suit the times, if you will. But in any case, the tool is not able to fit all users. That is why you are asked to shut down parts of your brain to use the tool. There are many people who cannot comprehend stuff anyway, for them the religion is also a blessing.
Religion as a tool provides us with ultimate law and ultimate force to enforce this law. It helps tremendously with running societies. It also gives a lot of people hope and happiness.
Scientific evidence is this: for every bad deed of the Church, there are thousands upon thousands of good deeds. All in all, its a great and very helpful organisation, and so are most of religions.
I don't see superstition and ritual as nessiscary tools to enforce cooperation and valuing "being alive" more then "being dead". There is a pretty large distinction between the two that needn't be draw. While true it is a cooping mechanism for some, that is partially the reason we shouldn't be perpetuating it anymore. When it comes between admiration for the sciences, or admiration for the divine: it would almost certainly be 3 to 1 in favor of divine.
While it does feed people around the world, it also does things to harm people in the name of god. Legions of people have be executed under its pretense, and even more are psychologically damaged from it. Science and the arts have all been stifled. More resources have been used to fight abortion then genocide.
Essentially you'd rather see too much power in the hands of one organization instead of the other. Picking winners and losers. The problem is the power. When the church had it, they used it and god to control everything. Now it's in the hands of the government, they use it and weapons to control everything.
Also, in regards to the Big Bang Theory statement, I say this: It's a theory. It's not a law; it is just a theory that is generally accepted among scientist/people who believe in science. I'm sure the reason it isn't a law is that no, we cannot prove it with certainty or replicate it. It is a theory for those reasons, people THINK it happened, but cannot prove it without any doubt. Perhaps religion is a theory in that sense. Kind of an interesting perspective.
Quote from: Bookmeister on March 17, 2013, 02:03:06 PM
Wow is there a lot going on here. First I would like to say also how great this community is. There are no derogatory comments or condescending going on. I believe at this point there are two
equally deserving threads going in here. One about science and one about faith or belief.
I will talk about the science one first. I see no contradiction between science and faith as many scientists throughout history and indeed many today are faithfull Christians. But there are contradictions within secular science today. I believe all contradictions within Christianity are perceived contradictions and not real ones and I would be happy to discuss these.
Let me pose two to those of you who are atheists and cling to science to answer all. The base premise of science is that in order for something to be valid it must be observable and repeatable. That said what do you do with the Big Bang theory? Not observable nor repeatable. And how about the idea that something came from nothing. Never once has it been observed that something came from nothing let alone repeatadly.
The Big Bang theory is the best explanation science has for the creation of the universe. It is not a "theory" that means conjecture or hypothesis, it's actually repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. It also is not called "the absolute answer to everything", it is ongoing research that is interesting, and IMO, vastly more then a celestial god figure.
Atheists as we've been called dont "cling" to science, but it is certainly more tangible then a book that may/may not have been authored by the divine inspiration of god. Science just represents the things we know about the natural world, and our greatest efforts to understand it. As remarked previously, even if the Big Bang isn't true - it doesn't bring science one step closer to proving the existence of god. The existence of the god of abraham is about as likely the existence of the thousands of other dead gods people no longer see fit to worship.
I think the answer to your question keyeto would be found in the same answer as to what would God do with all the good people that had never heard of Gods son or God and still lived a good life. Can someone say what happened/will happen to them? Will God hate those people just because they never heard of him and thus never believed? Do they not get into heaven just because they lived a good life and yet never heard it existed?
Also, I think in revelations it says God wants to bring heaven to earth. But I could be wrong
Quote from: Bookmeister on March 17, 2013, 02:03:06 PM
Wow is there a lot going on here. First I would like to say also how great this community is. There are no derogatory comments or condescending going on. I believe at this point there are two
equally deserving threads going in here. One about science and one about faith or belief.
I will talk about the science one first. I see no contradiction between science and faith as many scientists throughout history and indeed many today are faithfull Christians. But there are contradictions within secular science today. I believe all contradictions within Christianity are perceived contradictions and not real ones and I would be happy to discuss these.
Let me pose two to those of you who are atheists and cling to science to answer all. The base premise of science is that in order for something to be valid it must be observable and repeatable. That said what do you do with the Big Bang theory? Not observable nor repeatable. And how about the idea that something came from nothing. Never once has it been observed that something came from nothing let alone repeatadly.
I am not an Astrophysicist (I am a Medical Microbiologist) so I can not really speak directly about the Big Bang beyond the point that "observation and repeatability" would have to be viewed in the small scale or simulation.
As for life from non-life (abiogenesis or biopoiesis), I would recommend to you the Miller-Urey experiment. In a nutshell, the experiment consisted of taking non-living organic (carbon-based) elements, placing them in conditions that resembled proto-Earth atmosphere/conditions, and watched them begin to produce amino acids (this took decades). The majority of those amino acids produced are the same ones that are required for life as we know it. Amino acids make up the very core of DNA and are required for such basic functions as hormone production or the breakdown of sugars/starches in our diets. I grant that non-living organic chemicals/elements to amino acids is still a large jump from complex life, however the fact that amino acids work together as well as individually in all life today is well known. The next step to be reproduced would be having these amino acids actually work to form a singular functioning life form.
Christians are atheists to other gods anyway. Christians don't believe in the Muslim's god - Allah. The Qu'ran has its own list of punishments for none believers, none of which say "Christians believe in the same god". You're also atheist to the existence of Hindu gods as well. According to all of these holy books, someone is wrong - and very much so.
Edit: Also if god is inscrutable, and still sees it fit to judge the actions and morality of human people, why would the inscrutable god have such a detailed and specific law? And if he is so inscrutable, why isn't his law inscrutable as well?
Quote from: Kareason on March 17, 2013, 02:32:01 PM
Quote from: Bookmeister on March 17, 2013, 02:03:06 PM
Wow is there a lot going on here. First I would like to say also how great this community is. There are no derogatory comments or condescending going on. I believe at this point there are two
equally deserving threads going in here. One about science and one about faith or belief.
I will talk about the science one first. I see no contradiction between science and faith as many scientists throughout history and indeed many today are faithfull Christians. But there are contradictions within secular science today. I believe all contradictions within Christianity are perceived contradictions and not real ones and I would be happy to discuss these.
Let me pose two to those of you who are atheists and cling to science to answer all. The base premise of science is that in order for something to be valid it must be observable and repeatable. That said what do you do with the Big Bang theory? Not observable nor repeatable. And how about the idea that something came from nothing. Never once has it been observed that something came from nothing let alone repeatadly.
I am not an Astrophysicist (I am a Medical Microbiologist) so I can not really speak directly about the Big Bang beyond the point that "observation and repeatability" would have to be viewed in the small scale or simulation.
As for life from non-life (abiogenesis or biopoiesis), I would recommend to you the Miller-Urey experiment. In a nutshell, the experiment consisted of taking non-living organic (carbon-based) elements, placing them in conditions that resembled proto-Earth atmosphere/conditions, and watched them begin to produce amino acids (this took decades). The majority of those amino acids produced are the same ones that are required for life as we know it. Amino acids make up the very core of DNA and are required for such basic functions as hormone production or the breakdown of sugars/starches in our diets. I grant that non-living organic chemicals/elements to amino acids is still a large jump from complex life, however the fact that amino acids work together as well as individually in all life today is well known. The next step to be reproduced would be having these amino acids actually work to form a singular functioning life form.
I am unaware of the experiment of which you speak and I do not believe life came from non-life but that is not at issue here. I said the is no observable or repeatable instance of something coming from nothing. If we can agree non-life substances came before life substances then I am speaking of non-life substances have never appeared from nothing.
Quote from: Dudecore on March 17, 2013, 02:14:09 PM
Essentially you'd rather see too much power in the hands of one organization instead of the other. Picking winners and losers.
Precisely, I'm a very practical person.
Quote from: Dudecore on March 17, 2013, 02:14:09 PM
The problem is the power. When the church had it, they used it and god to control everything. Now it's in the hands of the government, they use it and weapons to control everything.
No, power is not a problem, the problem is when it is used to do evil things. To break iMtG Law. As for the Church, it overwhelmingly used power to do good. While you can find some silly commentary to law in the Bible, their ultimate law is Golden Rule and Ten Amendments. Very good law.
Quote from: Keyeto on March 17, 2013, 02:08:25 PM
This still seems a bit odd to me though. Say I live a good life. I don't murder, I don't steal, and am overall a good person. The only thing is, due to lack of solid proof, I am unable to blindly follow this omnipotent being (the word blindly is not meant to offend, I have no problem with those who do believe in God). That means I don't get into Heaven, and a rapist can simply because he accepted Jesus? That just doesn't seem like a very Just way of doing things. I thought one of the main points if the bible was to instill a moral code in people, that they might live a good, moral life, in addition to believing in god. But not believing completely outweighs the moral life aspect?
My reasoning is this:
Say I'm god. Two people are before me, waiting to get into heaven.
The first is a murderer who believed I exist.
The second lived a good life, and was the best person he could be. He did not believe in me, or my son. I understand why he didn't believe (omniscience), and it makes sense.
The first man gets into paradise over the second, simply for believing? Or am I misunderstanding?
Edit: Wow, there were several posts that happened while I was typing this up. This was intended for what NyghtHawk had said. But is still a question I have in general.
The rapist is forgiven if he realized his wrong and truly was sorry for it and asked God for forgiveness.
Just being good does not equate to being forgiven. No person is blameless. No matter how much good you do, it does not cover the bad (your sins). Sin separates you from God. God is holy and sin goes against that. Jesus died on the cross to take all sins away if you put your faith and trust in Him, letting you be blameless before God.
I cant claim to have all the answers, I am not God. We have limited knowledge and perception. We are created and dont have the capability to understand everything God does or is.
He is just and merciful. A person lives a (mostly) moral life but reject Jesus and what he has done. He warned that person of the consequence. Why then do they deserve something (heaven) that they rejected when they rejected Jesus and what He said in the first place? God showed His mercy by giving that person the opportunity. If they reject it, why should they be shown mercy after the fact?
Quote from: Bookmeister on March 17, 2013, 02:03:06 PM
I am unaware of the experiment of which you speak and I do not believe life came from non-life but that is not at issue here. I said the is no observable or repeatable instance of something coming from nothing. If we can agree non-life substances came before life substances then I am speaking of non-life substances have never appeared from nothing.
That is a loaded proposition that you're using. By those narrow parameters nothing can exist, and yet here we are. Again, while none of that proves gods existence and only attempts to throw pie in the face of science because it cannot prove what cannot be proven - It cannot answer the ultimate question.
God doesn't answer the question either. Unfortunately he couldn't have come from nothing, and whoever made him couldn't have come from nothing either. Perhaps there is no answer. I don't know.
Quote from: Dudecore on March 17, 2013, 02:32:18 PM
Christians are atheists to other gods anyway. Christians don't believe in the Muslim's god - Allah. The Qu'ran has its own list of punishments for none believers, none of which say "Christians believe in the same god". You're also atheist to the existence of Hindu gods as well. According to all of these holy books, someone is wrong - and very much so.
Edit: Also if god is inscrutable, and still sees it fit to judge the actions and morality of human people, why would the inscrutable god have such a detailed and specific law? And if he is so inscrutable, why isn't his law inscrutable as well?
Atheism is belief in no God(s). Lets not get silly here and try to say something that isnt. If you believe in any God you are not atheist, no matter the religion. You cant change the definition to suit.
@ NyghtHawk
Then what do you call your non-belief in Shiva?
Quote from: Dudecore on March 17, 2013, 02:57:44 PM
Quote from: Bookmeister on March 17, 2013, 02:03:06 PM
I am unaware of the experiment of which you speak and I do not believe life came from non-life but that is not at issue here. I said the is no observable or repeatable instance of something coming from nothing. If we can agree non-life substances came before life substances then I am speaking of non-life substances have never appeared from nothing.
That is a loaded proposition that you're using. By those narrow parameters nothing can exist, and yet here we are. Again, while none of that proves gods existence and only attempts to throw pie in the face of science because it cannot prove what cannot be proven - It cannot answer the ultimate question.
God doesn't answer the question either. Unfortunately he couldn't have come from nothing, and whoever made him couldn't have come from nothing either. Perhaps there is no answer. I don't know.
So people disregard the existence of God because they said it cant be proven scientifically, yet if something is science cant be proven, no problem....
Now if we assume for a minute:
If God is infinite, how could we (assuming the existence of God is true) who are finite, ever understand that or its implications? If we are created by intelligent design, how do we understand something we were not given the ability to understand? We cant understand something being infinite because we and everything around us is not.
Quote from: Dudecore on March 17, 2013, 03:05:41 PM
@ NyghtHawk
Then what do you call your non-belief in Shiva?
Not atheism. Come on dude. I think youre a smart guy, so if the definition of Atheism is the belief in NO god/deity, that how can you or I change that definition. I do believe in God (irrelevant to other religions), which means I cant by the definition of atheism be atheist....
Quote from: NyghtHawk on March 17, 2013, 03:14:01 PM
Quote from: Dudecore on March 17, 2013, 02:57:44 PM
Quote from: Bookmeister on March 17, 2013, 02:03:06 PM
I am unaware of the experiment of which you speak and I do not believe life came from non-life but that is not at issue here. I said the is no observable or repeatable instance of something coming from nothing. If we can agree non-life substances came before life substances then I am speaking of non-life substances have never appeared from nothing.
That is a loaded proposition that you're using. By those narrow parameters nothing can exist, and yet here we are. Again, while none of that proves gods existence and only attempts to throw pie in the face of science because it cannot prove what cannot be proven - It cannot answer the ultimate question.
God doesn't answer the question either. Unfortunately he couldn't have come from nothing, and whoever made him couldn't have come from nothing either. Perhaps there is no answer. I don't know.
So people disregard the existence of God because they said it cant be proven scientifically, yet if something is science cant be proven, no problem....
Yeah everyone, throw out every single thing we know about science, because a magic player can't answer the meaning of life on a message board. Just preposterous and insulting. I am not "disregarding" the existence of god any more then I'm disregarding the existence of a 6,000 pound elephant in the truck of my car that disappears whenever I look to see if he is there. I can't disprove that scientifically either.
Quote
Now if we assume for a minute:
Don't like where we are going...
Quote
If God is infinite, how could we (assuming the existence of God is true) who are finite, ever understand that or its implications? If we are created by intelligent design, how do we understand something we were not given the ability to understand? We cant understand something being infinite because we and everything around us is not.
How does being designed intelligently even prove the god you worshipped was even the creator? What explanation of life does evolution not sufficiently answer? What is it about religion that makes people so certain about the one thing absolutely no one has any right to be certain about?
I addressed the problem of god being inscrutable before. He cannot work in mysterious ways and also have authored the bible. They are incompatible ideas. Either he wants us to live our lives as described by the bible, or he does not. If he worked in mysterious ways he would not have written down what he wanted.
Quote from: Dudecore on March 17, 2013, 02:57:44 PM
Quote from: Bookmeister on March 17, 2013, 02:03:06 PM
I am unaware of the experiment of which you speak and I do not believe life came from non-life but that is not at issue here. I said the is no observable or repeatable instance of something coming from nothing. If we can agree non-life substances came before life substances then I am speaking of non-life substances have never appeared from nothing.
That is a loaded proposition that you're using. By those narrow parameters nothing can exist, and yet here we are. Again, while none of that proves gods existence and only attempts to throw pie in the face of science because it cannot prove what cannot be proven - It cannot answer the ultimate question.
God doesn't answer the question either. Unfortunately he couldn't have come from nothing, and whoever made him couldn't have come from nothing either. Perhaps there is no answer. I don't know.
It is not a loaded question and I am a huge fan if science. Christianity does answer the question. Something(everything) comes from something. There is an uncaused first cause. Christianity names this cause as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. We can't get there on our own reasoning so God chose to reveal Himself through His Son and His Word.
Quote from: Bookmeister on March 17, 2013, 03:32:50 PM
Quote from: Dudecore on March 17, 2013, 02:57:44 PM
Quote from: Bookmeister on March 17, 2013, 02:03:06 PM
I am unaware of the experiment of which you speak and I do not believe life came from non-life but that is not at issue here. I said the is no observable or repeatable instance of something coming from nothing. If we can agree non-life substances came before life substances then I am speaking of non-life substances have never appeared from nothing.
That is a loaded proposition that you're using. By those narrow parameters nothing can exist, and yet here we are. Again, while none of that proves gods existence and only attempts to throw pie in the face of science because it cannot prove what cannot be proven - It cannot answer the ultimate question.
God doesn't answer the question either. Unfortunately he couldn't have come from nothing, and whoever made him couldn't have come from nothing either. Perhaps there is no answer. I don't know.
It is not a loaded question and I am a huge fan if science. Christianity does answer the question. Something(everything) comes from something. There is an uncaused first cause. Christianity names this cause as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. We can't get there on our own reasoning so God chose to reveal Himself through His Son and His Word.
I know this is hypothetical but I'm going to ask it anyways. If the "first cause" were to be factually determined, what then happens to the concept that God is the first cause and the faith in that idea? I respect the individual need for faith but we have to admit that it is impossible to "prove" God so the addition/introduction of him into the equation only serves to muddy the waters.
So now my understanding of god has come to this. He gave us the choice to believe in him, and that was a blessing, and if we ignore that blessing (don't believe in him) we go to Hell. This sounds really forced.
"Hey guys, I exist, but I'm never going to show myself. Believe me, or go to Hell."
I'm not sure I like the "Believe in me or rot for eternity" aspect of all of this. That doesn't sound like a god I would want to follow. And how is the option to believe in him a blessing? We are given options to believe things everyday. Here's an example:
Everyone on iMtG: I play guitar. If you don't believe me, I'm going to cast you out of my mind, and disregard you completely. You can believe me, and we will be friends. Or, you can not believe me, and I'll want nothing to do with you. Also, if you murder someone for no reason, that's cool. As long as you believe I am a guitar player. But if you don't believe I'm a guitar player, I don't care how good of a person you are, it's not acceptable, I'll not befriend you.
That, to me, seems to be his logic. Perhaps I'm being a bit reductio ad absurdum here, but hey, being hyperbolic helps prove points, does it not?
Quote from: Bookmeister on March 17, 2013, 03:32:50 PM
Quote from: Dudecore on March 17, 2013, 02:57:44 PM
Quote from: Bookmeister on March 17, 2013, 02:03:06 PM
I am unaware of the experiment of which you speak and I do not believe life came from non-life but that is not at issue here. I said the is no observable or repeatable instance of something coming from nothing. If we can agree non-life substances came before life substances then I am speaking of non-life substances have never appeared from nothing.
That is a loaded proposition that you're using. By those narrow parameters nothing can exist, and yet here we are. Again, while none of that proves gods existence and only attempts to throw pie in the face of science because it cannot prove what cannot be proven - It cannot answer the ultimate question.
God doesn't answer the question either. Unfortunately he couldn't have come from nothing, and whoever made him couldn't have come from nothing either. Perhaps there is no answer. I don't know.
It is not a loaded question and I am a huge fan if science. Christianity does answer the question. Something(everything) comes from something. There is an uncaused first cause. Christianity names this cause as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. We can't get there on our own reasoning so God chose to reveal Himself through His Son and His Word.
God does not answer any question, as you've described yourself a fan of science - how is "god did it" an answer at all? As I've stated numerous times, it only begs the question of who put him there?
What if life is a simulation on an alien computer program? What if it is 2 gods fighting? It begs the question that any god capable of designing such a complex world - he must be complex himself. Anything that would be that complex would likely have reached such a level through evolution. Any self respecting, intellectually honest person would readily admit they do not know the origins of the universe - no one can.
Anyone who views the natural world sees overwhelming complexity but not optimal design. Plenty of redundancy and effectively useless designs. Flightless birds, sightless fish, millions of species of beetles. Billions of viruses - both benign and ravaging - develop constantly and for every species. It seems kinda silly that they're also all the product of intelligent design.
Quote from: Kareason on March 17, 2013, 03:41:22 PM
I know this is hypothetical but I'm going to ask it anyways. If the "first cause" were to be factually determined, what then happens to the concept that God is the first cause and the faith in that idea? I respect the individual need for faith but we have to admit that it is impossible to "prove" God so the addition/introduction of him into the equation only serves to muddy the waters.
Or to Christians, make it clearer.
In the end, it comes down to faith. You believe or you don't, the choice is yours. All I can tell you is how I feel, what I've seen, and why I believe the way I do.
Quote from: Keyeto on March 17, 2013, 03:45:30 PM
So now my understanding of god has come to this. He gave us the choice to believe in him, and that was a blessing, and if we ignore that blessing (don't believe in him) we go to Hell. This sounds really forced.
"Hey guys, I exist, but I'm never going to show myself. Believe me, or go to Hell."
I'm not sure I like the "Believe in me or rot for eternity" aspect of all of this. That doesn't sound like a god I would want to follow. And how is the option to believe in him a blessing? We are given options to believe things everyday. Here's an example:
Everyone on iMtG: I play guitar. If you don't believe me, I'm going to cast you out of my mind, and disregard you completely. You can believe me, and we will be friends. Or, you can not believe me, and I'll want nothing to do with you. Also, if you murder someone for no reason, that's cool. As long as you believe I am a guitar player. But if you don't believe I'm a guitar player, I don't care how good of a person you are, it's not acceptable, I'll not befriend you.
That, to me, seems to be his logic. Perhaps I'm being a bit reductio ad absurdum here, but hey, being hyperbolic helps prove points, does it not?
Think of it this way if you like comparing things is such ways.
You are told not to eat fatty/bad foods because they are bad for you. If you do you can shorten your lifespan by having a heart attack and dieing from eating unhealthy. You still have the choice to eat that way if you want, but you know the risk. The God of the Bible is no different. You are told the consequence of living a life without God, but if you choose that anyway, its still your choice. Not a forced one. You chose it.
Keyeto doesn't play the guitar!!
He's lying to all of us!
Quote from: Hays413 on March 17, 2013, 04:02:57 PM
Keyeto doesn't play the guitar!!
He's lying to all of us!
Well, I know someone who's on the short list to enemy.
I kid of course :P
And as for choices, there's hardly much if a choice when it comes to eternal damnation. I mean, that's nothing more than a scare tactic. "Believe in me, or be forever tormented in the afterlife". Yes you have a choice, but I don't think a caring god, who loves all his children, needs to terrify people into belief. I have asked several Christians why they believe in God, the most common answer, "To go to Heaven/To avoid Hell". If your god is truly a role model, why use scare tactics? It shouldn't be necessary. We should want to follow him, not follow him to avoid an eternity of torment.
Quote from: Hays413 on March 17, 2013, 04:02:57 PM
Keyeto doesn't play the guitar!!
He's lying to all of us!
Pretty bold claim, can you prove it? :)
Quote from: NyghtHawk on March 17, 2013, 04:02:46 PM
Quote from: Keyeto on March 17, 2013, 03:45:30 PM
So now my understanding of god has come to this. He gave us the choice to believe in him, and that was a blessing, and if we ignore that blessing (don't believe in him) we go to Hell. This sounds really forced.
"Hey guys, I exist, but I'm never going to show myself. Believe me, or go to Hell."
I'm not sure I like the "Believe in me or rot for eternity" aspect of all of this. That doesn't sound like a god I would want to follow. And how is the option to believe in him a blessing? We are given options to believe things everyday. Here's an example:
Everyone on iMtG: I play guitar. If you don't believe me, I'm going to cast you out of my mind, and disregard you completely. You can believe me, and we will be friends. Or, you can not believe me, and I'll want nothing to do with you. Also, if you murder someone for no reason, that's cool. As long as you believe I am a guitar player. But if you don't believe I'm a guitar player, I don't care how good of a person you are, it's not acceptable, I'll not befriend you.
That, to me, seems to be his logic. Perhaps I'm being a bit reductio ad absurdum here, but hey, being hyperbolic helps prove points, does it not?
Think of it this way if you like comparing things is such ways.
You are told not to eat fatty/bad foods because they are bad for you. If you do you can shorten your lifespan by having a heart attack and dieing from eating unhealthy. You still have the choice to eat that way if you want, but you know the risk. The God of the Bible is no different. You are told the consequence of living a life without God, but if you choose that anyway, its still your choice. Not a forced one. You chose it.
Umm this arguement is invalid given that fatty foods are scientifically -ahem- "magically" proven time and time again to lead to high cholesterol, clogging of arteries leading to heart attacks and other adverse health issues. Beyond a doubt, proven. "God" is guilty of being a logical falacy until proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt to exist.
I truly hope the day comes where this "all mighty lord" is exposed from beyond the curtain. Because he/she has a .poo. load of questions to answer for. And needs to be held accountable for the countless upon countless indiscretions that are all a part of the "plan".
Quote from: Piotr on March 17, 2013, 04:09:08 PM
Quote from: Hays413 on March 17, 2013, 04:02:57 PM
Keyeto doesn't play the guitar!!
He's lying to all of us!
Pretty bold claim, can you prove it? :)
NO I CAN'T!
But I also can't disprove it either!
So either way I'm right!
Bahaha, oh and the earth isn't 13.7 billion years old! It's only 6000!!
And man walked with the dinosaurs!
Lets hope none makes a .politics. thread
👀
Quote from: Keyeto on March 17, 2013, 04:07:48 PM
"Believe in me, or be forever tormented in the afterlife".
This is not really what Christianity teaches. It teaches that when you die, you simply die and this is true for all of us. Now, when you believe in God according To Jesus' teachings, at the end of times you will be granted resurrection and eternal life.
Quote from: SixShotVixXen on March 17, 2013, 04:20:19 PM
Lets hope none makes a .politics. thread
👀
We survived a few of those as well. This one is 3rd or 4th religion thread that I remember.
Quote from: Piotr on March 17, 2013, 04:22:00 PM
Quote from: Keyeto on March 17, 2013, 04:07:48 PM
"Believe in me, or be forever tormented in the afterlife".
This is not really what Christianity teaches. It teaches that when you die, you simply die and this is true for all of us. Now, when you believe in God according To Jesus' teachings, at the end of times you will be granted resurrection and eternal life.
Then what is the punishment for not believing? Is it not Hell, a place of torment? It was my understanding that if you believe, you go to Heaven. A place of paradise and wonder. If you don't, you go to Hell. A place of torture and horror. To me, that translates as "Believe in me, or face punishment."
Quote from: Keyeto on March 17, 2013, 04:24:39 PM
Quote from: Piotr on March 17, 2013, 04:22:00 PM
Quote from: Keyeto on March 17, 2013, 04:07:48 PM
"Believe in me, or be forever tormented in the afterlife".
This is not really what Christianity teaches. It teaches that when you die, you simply die and this is true for all of us. Now, when you believe in God according To Jesus' teachings, at the end of times you will be granted resurrection and eternal life.
Then what is the punishment for not believing? Is it not Hell, a place of torment? It was my understanding that if you believe, you go to Heaven. A place of paradise and wonder. If you don't, you go to Hell. A place of torture and horror. To me, that translates as "Believe in me, or face punishment."
Which we have to remember, none of that is proven to be true. Without truly knowing, ie dying, we can't know. Even if somebody died and came back and said they know they answer, we can't prove them wrong and they can't prove themselves right. But that's niether here not there because hello, undead zombie!
Quote from: Hays413 on March 17, 2013, 04:15:12 PM
Quote from: Piotr on March 17, 2013, 04:09:08 PM
Quote from: Hays413 on March 17, 2013, 04:02:57 PM
Keyeto doesn't play the guitar!!
He's lying to all of us!
Pretty bold claim, can you prove it? :)
NO I CAN'T!
But I also can't disprove it either!
So either way I'm right!
Bahaha, oh and the earth isn't 13.7 billion years old! It's only 6000!!
And man walked with the dinosaurs!
This is the type of argument we've been trying to avoid.
Quote from: SixShotVixXen on March 17, 2013, 04:20:19 PM
Lets hope none makes a .politics. thread
👀
It's happened before, and usually ends up like this :P strong opinions/beliefs clashing. I tend to avoid arguing on such matters, because trying to change someone's religion or beliefs by arguing with them is like trying to stop a freight train with your testicles.
What's so bad about accepting other's different beliefs if it works for them? I have close friends from Atheists to Greek Orthodox to Buddhist, and myself a Deist, and yet we've never even had a single argument about it. There is some democrat vs republican teasing during election seasons, but never anything ill-spirited.
What is so difficult about respect?
Quote from: Dudecore on March 17, 2013, 04:35:47 PM
Quote from: Hays413 on March 17, 2013, 04:15:12 PM
Quote from: Piotr on March 17, 2013, 04:09:08 PM
Quote from: Hays413 on March 17, 2013, 04:02:57 PM
Keyeto doesn't play the guitar!!
He's lying to all of us!
Pretty bold claim, can you prove it? :)
NO I CAN'T!
But I also can't disprove it either!
So either way I'm right!
Bahaha, oh and the earth isn't 13.7 billion years old! It's only 6000!!
And man walked with the dinosaurs!
This is the type of argument we've been trying to avoid.
But inevitable.
Or maybe I was testing the community's faith to not fall backwards into the age old Internet arguing. Just like god tested Job...
Quote from: Gorzo on March 17, 2013, 04:36:06 PM
Quote from: SixShotVixXen on March 17, 2013, 04:20:19 PM
Lets hope none makes a .politics. thread
👀
It's happened before, and usually ends up like this :P strong opinions/beliefs clashing. I tend to avoid arguing on such matters, because trying to change someone's religion or beliefs by arguing with them is like trying to stop a freight train with your testicles.
What's so bad about accepting other's different beliefs if it works for them? I have close friends from Atheists to Greek Orthodox to Buddhist, and myself a Deist, and yet we've never even had a single argument about it. There is some democrat vs republican teasing during election seasons, but never anything ill-spirited.
What is so difficult about respect?
Nothing at all. I certainly have no issue with people who have different beliefs. My friends stretch almost every belief out there, some of them can't make up their mind, and have a different one every few months lol. I like to take these kinds of debates as a learning opportunity. I get to project my thoughts and questions about things (in this case, religion) and hear the thoughts of those who believe otherwise. I'm glad our community has been more intelligent than the typical "god works in mysterious ways" or "you can prove he doesn't exist, so your argument is invalid" copouts. I agree with you though, trying to change someone's beliefs is useless, and painstaking.
What is so beautiful about the Christian belief system is that it is not up to me to change anyone's mind. My commission is to proclaim salvation through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. He lived a perfect life we never could. He died as payment for the sins of His people and he was resurrected on the third day assuring us of eternal life. Proclaiming this I have done. Now I can respect and be friends with people who do not believe this because ultimately it is up to God to change hearts and minds.
Once again I truly appreciate the tone of this discussion being one if respect and it not degenerating into name calling and adhominem attacks.
Quote from: NyghtHawk on March 17, 2013, 03:47:56 PM
Quote from: Kareason on March 17, 2013, 03:41:22 PM
I know this is hypothetical but I'm going to ask it anyways. If the "first cause" were to be factually determined, what then happens to the concept that God is the first cause and the faith in that idea? I respect the individual need for faith but we have to admit that it is impossible to "prove" God so the addition/introduction of him into the equation only serves to muddy the waters.
Or to Christians, make it clearer.
In the end, it comes down to faith. You believe or you don't, the choice is yours. All I can tell you is how I feel, what I've seen, and why I believe the way I do.
And I truly respect that. I myself am currently stuck between Deism and Atheism. I find myself leaning a different way about every other day. I will never tell anyone they are wrong to have a belief, so long as that belief does not interfere with the rights and liberties of anyone else. Jefferson said it best, when asked about the beliefs of those around him, "It neither picks my pocket or breaks my arm." Until it does I am happy.
Quote from: Birdbrain on March 17, 2013, 10:12:26 AM
Very well said. And I agree with you on that. And will just agree to disagree.
I'm also not sure there is any proof that God doesn't exist. So saying he doesn't exist is too an outlandish claim
whoever -1ed me on this. I was merely pointing out we shouldn't judge things before we have evidence one way or another
Quote from: Birdbrain on March 17, 2013, 05:56:36 PM
Quote from: Birdbrain on March 17, 2013, 10:12:26 AM
Very well said. And I agree with you on that. And will just agree to disagree.
I'm also not sure there is any proof that God doesn't exist. So saying he doesn't exist is too an outlandish claim
whoever -1ed me on this. I was merely pointing out we shouldn't judge things before we have evidence one way or another
I've lost a couple myself. However I am also trying to pass the +1 out for good points made. This has been a great and well handled discussion.
I lost one too, but hey. This has been a contested topic for 1000's of years. People have opinions, others don't like em. It's life.
I will say though that without a doubt, this community is mature 99% of time. And it's to be respected. But hey, that little 1% has to be there. If not we might as well put on our smoking jackets, get out our pipes, and go "hmmm... Ah yes..." All day l
Quote from: Gorzo on March 17, 2013, 04:36:06 PM
Quote from: SixShotVixXen on March 17, 2013, 04:20:19 PM
Lets hope none makes a .politics. thread
👀
It's happened before, and usually ends up like this :P strong opinions/beliefs clashing. I tend to avoid arguing on such matters, because trying to change someone's religion or beliefs by arguing with them is like trying to stop a freight train with your testicles.
What's so bad about accepting other's different beliefs if it works for them? I have close friends from Atheists to Greek Orthodox to Buddhist, and myself a Deist, and yet we've never even had a single argument about it. There is some democrat vs republican teasing during election seasons, but never anything ill-spirited.
What is so difficult about respect?
I have no clue. I know people that have different beliefs for myself, but we never argue about it.
But going back to this testicles with a train thing.
Would his name be Iron Balls??
Just a suggestion... hahah
Quote from: Keyeto on March 17, 2013, 04:24:39 PM
Quote from: Piotr on March 17, 2013, 04:22:00 PM
Quote from: Keyeto on March 17, 2013, 04:07:48 PM
"Believe in me, or be forever tormented in the afterlife".
This is not really what Christianity teaches. It teaches that when you die, you simply die and this is true for all of us. Now, when you believe in God according To Jesus' teachings, at the end of times you will be granted resurrection and eternal life.
Then what is the punishment for not believing? Is it not Hell, a place of torment? It was my understanding that if you believe, you go to Heaven. A place of paradise and wonder. If you don't, you go to Hell. A place of torture and horror. To me, that translates as "Believe in me, or face punishment."
Well, no, there isn't a punishment at all, God simply refuses certain services to people who do not accept his open agreement. Unless you claim that I'm punishing you by not giving you free access to iMtG Server, for example.
Isn't the onus on the guitar player? Easier to prove something is true, than it is to prove something to be false. Just saying lol
Quote from: Double-O-Scotch on March 17, 2013, 06:41:54 PM
Isn't the onus on the guitar player? Easier to prove something is true, than it is to prove something to be false. Just saying lol
LMAO.
Quote from: Double-O-Scotch on March 17, 2013, 06:41:54 PM
Isn't the onus on the guitar player? Easier to prove something is true, than it is to prove something to be false. Just saying lol
In general? I'm not so sure.
I would say the onus is on the victim.
Man, I feel like I missed out of this conversation while I was at church today. Its awesome this conversation has stayed so civil for so long.
Dudecore: Im still going to respond, just give me a little while longer.
Quote from: Piotr on March 17, 2013, 06:27:38 PM
Quote from: Keyeto on March 17, 2013, 04:24:39 PM
Quote from: Piotr on March 17, 2013, 04:22:00 PM
Quote from: Keyeto on March 17, 2013, 04:07:48 PM
"Believe in me, or be forever tormented in the afterlife".
This is not really what Christianity teaches. It teaches that when you die, you simply die and this is true for all of us. Now, when you believe in God according To Jesus' teachings, at the end of times you will be granted resurrection and eternal life.
Then what is the punishment for not believing? Is it not Hell, a place of torment? It was my understanding that if you believe, you go to Heaven. A place of paradise and wonder. If you don't, you go to Hell. A place of torture and horror. To me, that translates as "Believe in me, or face punishment."
Well, no, there isn't a punishment at all, God simply refuses certain services to people who do not accept his open agreement. Unless you claim that I'm punishing you by not giving you free access to iMtG Server, for example.
Your comments amaze me. I believe you are not a Christian, correct me if I am wrong. If I am right you appear to grasp Christianity better than some Christians I know.
Quote from: Bookmeister on March 17, 2013, 06:51:42 PM
Quote from: Piotr on March 17, 2013, 06:27:38 PM
Quote from: Keyeto on March 17, 2013, 04:24:39 PM
Quote from: Piotr on March 17, 2013, 04:22:00 PM
Quote from: Keyeto on March 17, 2013, 04:07:48 PM
"Believe in me, or be forever tormented in the afterlife".
This is not really what Christianity teaches. It teaches that when you die, you simply die and this is true for all of us. Now, when you believe in God according To Jesus' teachings, at the end of times you will be granted resurrection and eternal life.
Then what is the punishment for not believing? Is it not Hell, a place of torment? It was my understanding that if you believe, you go to Heaven. A place of paradise and wonder. If you don't, you go to Hell. A place of torture and horror. To me, that translates as "Believe in me, or face punishment."
Well, no, there isn't a punishment at all, God simply refuses certain services to people who do not accept his open agreement. Unless you claim that I'm punishing you by not giving you free access to iMtG Server, for example.
Your comments amaze me. I believe you are not a Christian, correct me if I am wrong. If I am right you appear to grasp Christianity better than some Christians I know.
Why thank you. Define 'Christian', please ;] I was Christened.
Then I ask this question: If Hell is not punishment, what is it? The bible seemed very clear when describing Hell.
Revelation 14:10 "he will be tormented with fire and brimstone"
Revelation 14:11 "the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever and they have no rest day and night"
Revelation 20:14 "This is the second death, the lake of fire"
Quote from: Piotr on March 17, 2013, 06:58:26 PM
Quote from: Bookmeister on March 17, 2013, 06:51:42 PM
Quote from: Piotr on March 17, 2013, 06:27:38 PM
Quote from: Keyeto on March 17, 2013, 04:24:39 PM
Quote from: Piotr on March 17, 2013, 04:22:00 PM
Quote from: Keyeto on March 17, 2013, 04:07:48 PM
"Believe in me, or be forever tormented in the afterlife".
This is not really what Christianity teaches. It teaches that when you die, you simply die and this is true for all of us. Now, when you believe in God according To Jesus' teachings, at the end of times you will be granted resurrection and eternal life.
Then what is the punishment for not believing? Is it not Hell, a place of torment? It was my understanding that if you believe, you go to Heaven. A place of paradise and wonder. If you don't, you go to Hell. A place of torture and horror. To me, that translates as "Believe in me, or face punishment."
Well, no, there isn't a punishment at all, God simply refuses certain services to people who do not accept his open agreement. Unless you claim that I'm punishing you by not giving you free access to iMtG Server, for example.
Your comments amaze me. I believe you are not a Christian, correct me if I am wrong. If I am right you appear to grasp Christianity better than some Christians I know.
Why thank you. Define 'Christian', please ;] I was Christened.
One who has faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour.
Quote from: Keyeto on March 17, 2013, 07:00:59 PM
Then I ask this question: If Hell is not punishment, what is it? The bible seemed very clear when describing Hell.
Revelation 14:10 "he will be tormented with fire and brimstone"
Revelation 14:11 "the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever and they have no rest day and night"
Revelation 20:14 "This is the second death, the lake of fire"
like I said before. Hell is a separation from God. At least that's what I understand. Someone above explained it better than I did
Quote from: Birdbrain on March 17, 2013, 07:15:13 PM
Quote from: Keyeto on March 17, 2013, 07:00:59 PM
Then I ask this question: If Hell is not punishment, what is it? The bible seemed very clear when describing Hell.
Revelation 14:10 "he will be tormented with fire and brimstone"
Revelation 14:11 "the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever and they have no rest day and night"
Revelation 20:14 "This is the second death, the lake of fire"
like I said before. Hell is a separation from God. At least that's what I understand. Someone above explained it better than I did
So presenting Hell as fire, brimstone, torment, and a second death is just another way of saying "Without God"? That seems very cryptic. Why not just say, "Hell is the absence of God" or something?
Now let me see if I have this straight. Hell is being separated from God. This is undesirable, as the presence of God is a wonderful thing. To those who believe in God, this would be torment, as they have to live without the most beautiful thing possible; God's love and presence. This would mean to non-believers that Hell is nothing. They live without God everyday, so being without God is no punishment at all. Is this correct?
Quote from: Dudecore on March 17, 2013, 08:50:02 AM
Quote from: Freerthanu on March 17, 2013, 06:54:59 AM
1. What "atrocities" does Western Religion as a whole commit today?
- The new pope, "Francis," cooperated with the bloody Argentine military dictatorship from 1975-1983. He is a fascist, human rights abuser and enabler. He is also a homophobe, against same-sex marriage, against abortion, as well as being on the wrong side of history regarding many critical issues. A relic of a time well past.
- Denial of condom use in africa, contributing to the spread of AIDs.
- The large scale matter of child rape, which was actively and knowingly covered up by the former pope. It was one of the largest obstruction of justice cases in the history of the world - and no one was arrested or prosecuted.
- Continued denial of atrocities that are meet only with silence by the Catholic Church. Their sins absolved, and in some cases - people are given asylum.
Quote
2. Many of our most beloved scientists were Christian. Ever hear of Sir Isaac Newton?
Just because a scientist believes in god is not evidence for its existence. It makes no claims that it is an even worthy idea. People can be scientists and have other faulty ideas. Sir Isaac Newton is not the Übermensch.
Quote3. Has the secular government ever tried to "suppress" anything or any "scientific advances"?
To this, I'll half heartily agree. The Catholic Church has been particularly good at adopting new medicine and condoning its use (with the exception of the condom thinf). They don't offer that you "pray" as an alternative for cancer treatment. That being said - the church's official stance is that evolution isn't real, the earth is only 5,000 years old and Jesus was a real person.
As with most religions. People believe what they want. To some the idea of a "kill your neighbor for working on the sabbath" is silly, to others - it's in the bible, the literal word of god
.The thing is secular governments are awful, terrible things that have to go. Every government has to go. That is a seperate argument. The thing is that a "secular" government includes religious people - which is why stem cell research was stifled. Also, a "secular" government (which does not exist) does things because that's what the people want, not because they're "secular".
Quote
4. Have you ever tried and listened to a modern day Christian Scientist? Try Dr. Ken Haam.
What realm of science does Christian Science occupy? Sounds not like science to me...
QuoteIts very easy for non- christians to knock religion, but I doubt most of them have ever tried to look at both sides of the issue and research Creationism or Intelligent Design, which there are thousands of scientists who believe in them.
Thousands of people supported slavery, genocide, imperialism and worse. We cannot form a proper basis of opinion of anything based on what the popular opinion is. Creationism and Intelligent Design is not science.
I think there is a fundamental problem with respect for evidence. If we have to form a basis for belief, we can say what you would about science - you can move the goal posts so that you can say "what is proof?" - you can say "I believe it and no one can say I'm wrong" - but at the end of the day: what couldn't you do that with? If you exhibit a lack of respect for evidence in the face of god, I can just change the name and do it myself.
The simple fact that you can prove something without evidence, allows me to disprove it without evidence. And visa versa. So without a respect for evidence, we wouldn't have anything but "gut" instincts, which are not quantifiable.
Quote from: Keyeto on March 17, 2013, 07:17:56 PM
Quote from: Birdbrain on March 17, 2013, 07:15:13 PM
Quote from: Keyeto on March 17, 2013, 07:00:59 PM
Then I ask this question: If Hell is not punishment, what is it? The bible seemed very clear when describing Hell.
Revelation 14:10 "he will be tormented with fire and brimstone"
Revelation 14:11 "the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever and they have no rest day and night"
Revelation 20:14 "This is the second death, the lake of fire"
like I said before. Hell is a separation from God. At least that's what I understand. Someone above explained it better than I did
So presenting Hell as fire, brimstone, torment, and a second death is just another way of saying "Without God"? That seems very cryptic. Why not just say, "Hell is the absence of God" or something?
well. If you accept that God is the source of all life, than the absence of God is death eternal.
I actually don't think I can clearly answer your question honestly. The context in which it was written has to be studied.
Maybe that was a attempt at explaining something they couldn't explain. Like if a caveman saw a 7-47. They'd say it looked like a bird.
I honestly can't answer this
Sorry, trying to type response and accidentally quoted something.
Quote from: Freerthanu on March 17, 2013, 07:25:34 PM
Sorry, trying to type response and accidentally quoted something.
click on the message. At the bottom of it, there is an option to remove your post
Quote from: Keyeto on March 17, 2013, 07:00:59 PM
Then I ask this question: If Hell is not punishment, what is it? The bible seemed very clear when describing Hell.
Revelation 14:10 "he will be tormented with fire and brimstone"
Revelation 14:11 "the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever and they have no rest day and night"
Revelation 20:14 "This is the second death, the lake of fire"
Yet, this is not what Christianity teaches ;]
I do not take Bible literally and neither do Christians. Bible is not logical, as far as I'm told.
Quote from: Keyeto on March 17, 2013, 07:21:13 PM
Now let me see if I have this straight. Hell is being separated from God. This is undesirable, as the presence of God is a wonderful thing. To those who believe in God, this would be torment, as they have to live without the most beautiful thing possible; God's love and presence. This would mean to non-believers that Hell is nothing. They live without God everyday, so being without God is no punishment at all. Is this correct?
I believe so, yes.
Quote from: Keyeto on March 17, 2013, 07:21:13 PM
Now let me see if I have this straight. Hell is being separated from God. This is undesirable, as the presence of God is a wonderful thing. To those who believe in God, this would be torment, as they have to live without the most beautiful thing possible; God's love and presence. This would mean to non-believers that Hell is nothing. They live without God everyday, so being without God is no punishment at all. Is this correct?
God is in this world. Therefore, non-believers don't know what it's like without God
Quite a momentous even...
Quote from: Dudecore on March 17, 2013, 08:50:02 AM
Quote from: Freerthanu on March 17, 2013, 06:54:59 AM
1. What "atrocities" does Western Religion as a whole commit today?
- The new pope, "Francis," cooperated with the bloody Argentine military dictatorship from 1975-1983. He is a fascist, human rights abuser and enabler. He is also a homophobe, against same-sex marriage, against abortion, as well as being on the wrong side of history regarding many critical issues. A relic of a time well past.
- Denial of condom use in africa, contributing to the spread of AIDs.
- The large scale matter of child rape, which was actively and knowingly covered up by the former pope. It was one of the largest obstruction of justice cases in the history of the world - and no one was arrested or prosecuted.
- Continued denial of atrocities that are meet only with silence by the Catholic Church. Their sins absolved, and in some cases - people are given asylum.
Does the Catholic Church represent all churches? You mistakenly generalize Christianity as whole by painting us all as "Catholic". I am Protestant, and furthermore Non- Denominational as a whole and reject the idea of being labeled by Catholicism or any other Denomination. It is an unfair and dishonest label.
Quote
2. Many of our most beloved scientists were Christian. Ever hear of Sir Isaac Newton?
Just because a scientist believes in god is not evidence for its existence. It makes no claims that it is an even worthy idea. People can be scientists and have other faulty ideas. Sir Isaac Newton is not the Übermensch.
According to this argument then, none us have any intellectual legs to stand on. If this can be said of Newton, then it could be said of Darwin, or any other scientist. You stated correctly when you said " the goal posts can be changed". Nothing then is to be trusted.
Quote3. Has the secular government ever tried to "suppress" anything or any "scientific advances"?
To this, I'll half heartily agree. The Catholic Church has been particularly good at adopting new medicine and condoning its use (with the exception of the condom thinf). They don't offer that you "pray" as an alternative for cancer treatment. That being said - the church's official stance is that evolution isn't real, the earth is only 5,000 years old and Jesus was a real person.
As with most religions. People believe what they want. To some the idea of a "kill your neighbor for working on the sabbath" is silly, to others - it's in the bible, the literal word of god
.The thing is secular governments are awful, terrible things that have to go. Every government has to go. That is a seperate argument. The thing is that a "secular" government includes religious people - which is why stem cell research was stifled. Also, a "secular" government (which does not exist) does things because that's what the people want, not because they're "secular".
My point was in this question to point out the fact that simply that evil deeds have been committed not only in the name of "God" and religion, but in the name of science and government as well. Hitler used the the idea of "Eugenics" and "Evolution" to justify the idea of the "Aryan Race" and the "Final Solution". In fact people in the US were sterilized and in some cases straight up "put down" because of either illness' or handicaps in the early twentieth century.
Quote
4. Have you ever tried and listened to a modern day Christian Scientist? Try Dr. Ken Haam.
What realm of science does Christian Science occupy? Sounds not like science to me...
Why not explore realms of ideas and arguments outside the scope of your belief and bias? You can only grow from further study, I humbly suggest that maybe we can say that "Science" is your religion?
QuoteIts very easy for non- christians to knock religion, but I doubt most of them have ever tried to look at both sides of the issue and research Creationism or Intelligent Design, which there are thousands of scientists who believe in them.
Thousands of people supported slavery, genocide, imperialism and worse. We cannot form a proper basis of opinion of anything based on what the popular opinion is. Creationism and Intelligent Design is not science.
I think there is a fundamental problem with respect for evidence. If we have to form a basis for belief, we can say what you would about science - you can move the goal posts so that you can say "what is proof?" - you can say "I believe it and no one can say I'm wrong" - but at the end of the day: what couldn't you do that with? If you exhibit a lack of respect for evidence in the face of god, I can just change the name and do it myself.
The simple fact that you can prove something without evidence, allows me to disprove it without evidence. And visa versa. So without a respect for evidence, we wouldn't have anything but "gut" instincts, which are not quantifiable.
I realize that in the grand scope of ideas and debate that neither one of us will convince the other of anything at all, most people's minds are already made up and all of us are riddled with bias and we all have a proverbial "axe to grind ". All of that being said, these responses were made in friendly tones and I enjoy this conversation greatly.
Quote from: Piotr on March 17, 2013, 07:39:04 PM
Quote from: Keyeto on March 17, 2013, 07:21:13 PM
Now let me see if I have this straight. Hell is being separated from God. This is undesirable, as the presence of God is a wonderful thing. To those who believe in God, this would be torment, as they have to live without the most beautiful thing possible; God's love and presence. This would mean to non-believers that Hell is nothing. They live without God everyday, so being without God is no punishment at all. Is this correct?
I believe so, yes.
Well alright then, I believe that answers all of my questions. I thank you all for your great points, and varied points of view; I believe I have a better understanding of Christianity and the beliefs of those who follow it. And once again, it's great that this didnt get out of hand. It makes me proud to be part of this community.
Dudecore: I responded to each one of your comments, but it seem's like I did something wrong and it did not post my rebuttals. I really need to learn how to use this app.
Dudecore: I see them, my rebuttals for some reason are posted in the quotations I used from your posts. Can someone tell me what I am doing wrong?
Quote from: Freerthanu on March 17, 2013, 08:04:59 PM
Dudecore: I see them, my rebuttals for some reason are posted in the quotations I used from your posts. Can someone tell me what I am doing wrong?
It's all there, it's just within the quotes. If you want to make it stand out more, try using a different color for your rebuttals. Quote me to see how.
That statement looks kinda awkward now, but it was intended for your original post.
Quote from: Freerthanu on March 17, 2013, 08:04:59 PM
Dudecore: I see them, my rebuttals for some reason are posted in the quotations I used from your posts. Can someone tell me what I am doing wrong?
You can try to look up a post with quotes properly done, and quote it without posting to see how they did it.
Quote from: Keyeto on March 17, 2013, 08:06:49 PM
Quote from: Freerthanu on March 17, 2013, 08:04:59 PM
Dudecore: I see them, my rebuttals for some reason are posted in the quotations I used from your posts. Can someone tell me what I am doing wrong?
It's all there, it's just within the quotes. If you want to make it stand out more, try using a different color for your rebuttals. Quote me to see how.
That statement looks kinda awkward now, but it was intended for your original post.
Quote from: Freerthanu on March 17, 2013, 08:12:24 PM
Quote from: Keyeto on March 17, 2013, 08:06:49 PM
Quote from: Freerthanu on March 17, 2013, 08:04:59 PM
Dudecore: I see them, my rebuttals for some reason are posted in the quotations I used from your posts. Can someone tell me what I am doing wrong?
It's all there, it's just within the quotes. If you want to make it stand out more, try using a different color for your rebuttals. Quote me to see how.
That statement looks kinda awkward now, but it was intended for your original post.
Crap I suck at this. Sorry I am such a newb.
Quote from: Freerthanu on March 17, 2013, 07:57:20 PM
Quote from: Dudecore on March 17, 2013, 08:50:02 AM
Quote from: Freerthanu on March 17, 2013, 06:54:59 AM
1. What "atrocities" does Western Religion as a whole commit today?
- The new pope, "Francis," cooperated with the bloody Argentine military dictatorship from 1975-1983. He is a fascist, human rights abuser and enabler. He is also a homophobe, against same-sex marriage, against abortion, as well as being on the wrong side of history regarding many critical issues. A relic of a time well past.
- Denial of condom use in africa, contributing to the spread of AIDs.
- The large scale matter of child rape, which was actively and knowingly covered up by the former pope. It was one of the largest obstruction of justice cases in the history of the world - and no one was arrested or prosecuted.
- Continued denial of atrocities that are meet only with silence by the Catholic Church. Their sins absolved, and in some cases - people are given asylum.
Does the Catholic Church represent all churches? You mistakenly generalize Christianity as whole by painting us all as "Catholic". I am Protestant, and furthermore Non- Denominational as a whole and reject the idea of being labeled by Catholicism or any other Denomination. It is an unfair and dishonest label.
These are all things committed in the faith and service of god written about in the bible. The bible condones slavery, genocide, and other similarly abysmal behavior - you cannot simply wash your hands of it. If it is to be considered the written will and testament of god and Jesus Christ, then it must be taken as written. This whole thing has gone on too long and hasn't progressed beyond mere "preference" for the facts.
Quote
2. Many of our most beloved scientists were Christian. Ever hear of Sir Isaac Newton?
Just because a scientist believes in god is not evidence for its existence. It makes no claims that it is an even worthy idea. People can be scientists and have other faulty ideas. Sir Isaac Newton is not the Übermensch.
According to this argument then, none us have any intellectual legs to stand on. If this can be said of Newton, then it could be said of Darwin, or any other scientist. You stated correctly when you said " the goal posts can be changed". Nothing then is to be trusted.
i am not quite sure what you mean by this statement, so I will elaborate on mine. Thomas Jefferson was a slave owner, slavery is wrong. This does not mean what he said about liberty was incorrect. Sir Isaac Newton believed in god, does not mean there is a god. Sir Isaac Newton did not prove, nor did he have evidence to gods supposed existence. Intellectually, I am still counteracting gravity by standing.
Quote3. Has the secular government ever tried to "suppress" anything or any "scientific advances"?
To this, I'll half heartily agree. The Catholic Church has been particularly good at adopting new medicine and condoning its use (with the exception of the condom thinf). They don't offer that you "pray" as an alternative for cancer treatment. That being said - the church's official stance is that evolution isn't real, the earth is only 5,000 years old and Jesus was a real person.
As with most religions. People believe what they want. To some the idea of a "kill your neighbor for working on the sabbath" is silly, to others - it's in the bible, the literal word of god
.The thing is secular governments are awful, terrible things that have to go. Every government has to go. That is a seperate argument. The thing is that a "secular" government includes religious people - which is why stem cell research was stifled. Also, a "secular" government (which does not exist) does things because that's what the people want, not because they're "secular".[/color]
My point was in this question to point out the fact that simply that evil deeds have been committed not only in the name of "God" and religion, but in the name of science and government as well. Hitler used the the idea of "Eugenics" and "Evolution" to justify the idea of the "Aryan Race" and the "Final Solution". In fact people in the US were sterilized and in some cases straight up "put down" because of either illness' or handicaps in the early twentieth century.
Hitler didn't do those things because god didnt exist, he didn't do it because he was well-informed or had "too much" respect for evidence. He did them because he was a dogmatic dictator. The government is also misinformed - this isn't a debate about how people treat each other - this is a debate about religion. Two wrongs have never made a right, and in this situation it holds the same truth. Bad science exists, of course, but it is evolving along with our understanding of the natural world. Religion seems to be grounded in 2,000 year old superstition that has stunted believers in the same dogmatic ideals that skeptics are so against.
One would figure a book authored by the omniscient creator of the universe would have something to say about algebra, science or moral ethics that we would still be using today.
Quote
4. Have you ever tried and listened to a modern day Christian Scientist? Try Dr. Ken Haam.
What realm of science does Christian Science occupy? Sounds not like science to me...
Why not explore realms of ideas and arguments outside the scope of your belief and bias? You can only grow from further study, I humbly suggest that maybe we can say that "Science" is your religion?
It was a rhetorical question. I am fully aware of what Christian Science is. Science is not my religion, I don't need a religion nor something I follow without evidence. I'm perfectly fine reading books, challenging myself daily and appreciating life for all of its complexity.
QuoteIts very easy for non- christians to knock religion, but I doubt most of them have ever tried to look at both sides of the issue and research Creationism or Intelligent Design, which there are thousands of scientists who believe in them.
Thousands of people supported slavery, genocide, imperialism and worse. We cannot form a proper basis of opinion of anything based on what the popular opinion is. Creationism and Intelligent Design is not science.
I think there is a fundamental problem with respect for evidence. If we have to form a basis for belief, we can say what you would about science - you can move the goal posts so that you can say "what is proof?" - you can say "I believe it and no one can say I'm wrong" - but at the end of the day: what couldn't you do that with? If you exhibit a lack of respect for evidence in the face of god, I can just change the name and do it myself.
The simple fact that you can prove something without evidence, allows me to disprove it without evidence. And visa versa. So without a respect for evidence, we wouldn't have anything but "gut" instincts, which are not quantifiable.
[/quote]
I realize that in the grand scope of ideas and debate that neither one of us will convince the other of anything at all, most people's minds are already made up and all of us are riddled with bias and we all have a proverbial "axe to grind ". All of that being said, these responses were made in friendly tones and I enjoy this conversation greatly.
[/quote]
As I you. I have been doing this awhile, and do intent this to be my last post on the subject that has worn me out. I think more importantly then everything is the role of education in modern society. I believe it is important that everyone have an education and value things like the scientific method and skeptical inquiry. Religion to me is out dated - a relic of years past. It was a terror from a bygone era where most could not read, you'd have little prospects of living outside of 30 and life was too big when you didn't understand the littlest things.
I understand why people believe in it now, but doing so involves a fair bit of compartmentalized thought. The bible is a subject of debate I have the most problems rationalizing - how could it be the true word of god and then not adhered to 100%? The laws of Deuteronomy must hold as true today as when they were written by the omnipotent, omniscient being that wrote it.
If they are not adhered to, then they must not be written by him. If you select which parts are - you're not obeying his commandments. It is a logical mine field of problems that I'm not willing to negotiate - as none of them constitutes evidence.
In conclusion, I'd rather suffer the consequences of a life in pursuit of cognitive liberty, then a life under torment based on the ancient scribblings of a tribal, ritualistic, male dominated imperialist.
Quote from: Keyeto on March 17, 2013, 08:01:25 PM
Quote from: Piotr on March 17, 2013, 07:39:04 PM
Quote from: Keyeto on March 17, 2013, 07:21:13 PM
Now let me see if I have this straight. Hell is being separated from God. This is undesirable, as the presence of God is a wonderful thing. To those who believe in God, this would be torment, as they have to live without the most beautiful thing possible; God's love and presence. This would mean to non-believers that Hell is nothing. They live without God everyday, so being without God is no punishment at all. Is this correct?
I believe so, yes.
Well alright then, I believe that answers all of my questions. I thank you all for your great points, and varied points of view; I believe I have a better understanding of Christianity and the beliefs of those who follow it. And once again, it's great that this didnt get out of hand. It makes me proud to be part of this community.
unless we don't know what total separation from God is like
I don't get why either side can't move on. Creation AND evolution. After all, the Christians are infamous for inducting outside beliefs into the fold. Half the saints used to be pagan deities. Then the church waltzed in and said, " what you believe isn't wrong, " ( we all know how defensive people get when you question their beliefs ) "...it's just kind of flawed..." And then they tell them everything they believe is right, they just got the names wrong. Congrats, you're all Christian now.
So why not incorporate modern science into the fold? Science says the universe is billions of years old, ok, the bible got the number wrong. Easy fix. Should have carried the one.
Science believed that a cosmic explosion of utterly "god-like" proportions created the universe that we all know and love. Sounds like a pretty epic event that we could credit God with. After all, if god is truly omnipotent, why create earth and stop there? Creating a planet? We have a good idea how that happens with stellar formation. Now creating a universe? Not a friggin clue. we know it happened, just not how... Now that is an accomplishment worthy of the name God.
It's the tradition that messes the whole thing up. Stagnation. If you entrench yourself in the past, the whole world will pass you by. I used to be a quality engineer, and the first thing they teach you is "just because that's the way it's always been done, isn't a very good reason to continue doing so. Like the human condition, one must evolve to survive. Learn from your mistakes. Ask the questions nobody asks. Integrate what you've done into what you're doing and move forward.
The church is afraid to move forward because they risk losing everything they've gained. If they suddenly said" ok, we got the age of earth wrong. The bibles wrong. Sorry, can we all move on?" There would be an uproar. People would question their faith. The solidarity of their religion would deteriorate to an unrecoverable point. So instead, status quo. Solidarity. The church has no other choice. Essentially, tread water, or drown.
I am not saying there is no God. I'm saying that you, as an individual, don't need other people to tell you what to believe in.
"To thyself, the answer is inward"