All about Religion. (Rights, wrongs, Theocracy, etc.)

[The Inquisitive Stranger]

I think that's still an assumption about the nature of God, though.

The reason I'm asking, for clarification, is that some people are sure that there is a God, whereas others are sure that there isn't a God. When both groups argue their positions, they do so without really defining what they believe God's nature to be, and the argument tends to become meaningless.

Of course, one could say that all arguments are meaningless, because changing another person's mind is impossible. That being said, what, exactly, do you consider the nature of God to be?

[TheYak]

An all-knowing benevolent god (christian god) knows all outcomes of actions, knows the future and past, knows what we will do in the future and has designed us with full understanding of our exact path through existence, every action, every reaction, every tear and laughter. There is no 'test' when you know exactly what the results will be. This all-knowing god in the heaven denies all free will. If he exists and he lets harm befall us it is not because he's giving us the choices to do as we do. He knows what we will do as surely as he knows the primordial clay he breathed life into. We are trapped in his unending benevolence.

Couldn't that instead be a sublime demonstration of how valuable free will is to that god?  It must tear him apart to see what we'll choose but not alter it because he won't compromise the automatons?  Like a parent who knows that they have to let their kid make mistakes in order to learn, dashing to coerce somebody into choosing correctly isn't always the right way to go. 

[MrColossal]

But how can one make a mistake if one has no choice in the matter?

[TheYak]

The assumption that predicted results equals a lack of choice eludes me.  It's subject to interpretation, I suppose.  A clairvoyant knowing you'd draw a 3 of spades - did you have a choice in the draw?  I suppose that depends upon whether or not you believe in clairvoyance.

[Helm]

Every christian that is worthy of the title christian believes their god to be ultimately BENEVOLENT and ALL-KNOWING. There's no reaching on my part from the 'all-knowing' to 'no free will', and this then invalidates the benevolent, unless you consider LIGHTNING BOLT TO THE FACE to be benevolent, in which case letting the rest of us live and suffer is malevolent in itself. For the all-knowing, all-loving god, even the concept of human life away from his infinite grace is cruel and unjustified. He is not kind. He isn't testing us or teaching us anything. We are his lab rats in a labyrinth that he overviews, knows our every step and you call this kind? And when we go back to him and say 'I repent, Jesus, I love you. Please forgive me and give me strength'... is he glad? Is he in his infinite mercy, getting his ego boost? That his little machine did what he knew it would do?

Sadly the concept of 'all-good' coupled with 'all-knowing' (you know... all-powerful, without begining or end, a fuckin' snake protrays the alphabet all that...) is that which make for these problems. I would have no bone to pick with a somewhat-powerful and somewhat-nice Universe Creator. At least no bone that I could justify by looking around me in the world of men.

[MrColossal]

Yes, I'm bumping it again...

Why this time? Because I just watched this awesome lecture:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg

it's 3 minutes shy of 2 hours, his lecture goes on for about 70 minutes and the rest is questions and answers. He speaks on flagellum and the fossil record and chromosomes and all of it is amazing.

I totally recommend everyone with even the slightest interest in evolution or intelligent design watch it. I'm also quite interested in knowing what some of the people in this thread who have made points for ID would have to say about his reasons against.

Eric

[Ghormak]

That was interesting and fun. I second the recommendation.

[lo_res_man]

This sound interesting, unfortunately I don't have the time to watch it.
Oh, and one other thing. Someone accused me (only words for it, sorry if it seems to strong) of not understanding how life was chemistry, when I compared life to          Nanotechnology, and being a machine. what I meant was that life does not just depend upon the chemicals and how chemicals interact, but also on shape.   A common reason  why drugs have an effect, despite having a different chemical formula then the chemicals in the human body, is that they have the right molecular shape to fit the locks of the cell membrane and other parts of cells. and when something works on shape rather then chemical composition, it can best be described as a machine, and when that machine so so small that that a unit is on the scale of molecules, it can be described ( maybe not technically, but the molecules are pretty big) as a NANO-machine. I can think of other examples like ribosome and DNA, but I will get into that later.( if it is wanted)

[lo_res_man]

erm..hope this isn't taken as double posting or necroposting, but I thought this might interest some people, of course it proves nothing, but it shows that it isn't just nutcases like me that disagree with abiogenesis or evolution.
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=302
ps you will need adobe acrobat to read this.

[Nikolas]

Maybe someone should stick this post up the top...
This is getting ridiculous...

(But I promise that once I find the time I will read the 10 pages that I have't...)

EDIT:
No time to watch 117 mintues, right now... (as some of you may know...)

Is there any way of summing the 14 pages into one post maybe? OR am I asking too much...

[MrColossal]

Lo_res_man,

Ken Miller takes 2 common arguments against evolution and pretty much breaks them down and shows how they are wrong. Before continuing in this topic I'd be interested to know what you have to say to his points because he quite easily shows how evolution is correct in the face of those 2 arguements. He also speaks on the fossil record, and he uses names of scientist instead of just saying "scientists say this about creationism" or "I have heard that scientists say this about evolution" which we end up doing in here because we don't prepare like he did. Also, that PDF file does just what you say, proves nothing but not in the way you think. As Ken Miller states, all scientific methods and ways of understanding should always be carefully examined.

[Helm]

read my pdf

[LimpingFish]

(After a recap of Genesis 3:1-15)

1.Melville's Moby Dick begins, "Call me Ishmael." We say it is told in the first person. In what person is Genesis told? From whose viewpoint?

2. Who is the good guy in this story? Who is the Bad Guy? Can you make a strong case for reversal of the roles?

3.Traditionally, the apple is considered to be the fruit the serpent offered to Eve. But apples are not endemic to the Near East. Select one of the following, more logical substitutes, and discuss how myths come into being and are corrupted over long periods of time: Olive, Fig, Date, Pomegranate.

4. Why is the word Lord always in capitals and the name God always capitalized? Shouldn't the serpent's name be capitalized, as well? If no, why?

5. If God created everything (see Genesis, Chap. I), why did he create problems for himself by creating a serpent who would lead his creations astray? Why did God create a tree he did not want Adam and Eve to know about, and then go out of his way to warn them against it?

6. Compare and contrast Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel ceiling panel of the Expulsion from Paradise with Bosch's Garden of Earthly Delights.

7. Was Adam being a gentleman when he placed blame on Eve? Who was Quisling? Discuss "narking" as a character flaw.

8. God grew angry when he found out he had been defied. If God is omnipotent and omniscient, didn't he know? Why couldn't he find Adam and Eve when they hid?

9. If God had not wanted Adam and Eve to taste the fruit of the forbidden tree, why didn't he warn the serpent? Could God have prevented the serpent from tempting Adam and Eve? If yes, why didn't he? If no, discuss the possibility the serpent was as powerful as God.

10. Using examples from two different media journals, demonstrate the concept of "slanted news".

The above is an extract from Harlan Ellison's short story "The Deathbird", which concerns Nathan Stack, buried in the earth for 250,000 years and the creature called Snake, who guides him to fulfill a duty which only Stack can perform; The destruction of Life/God/Mankind. It is partly constructed as a written test.

The text below is quoted from "The Essential Ellison: A 50 Year Retrospective."

" "The Deathbird" (1973), at one and the same time, is the most dangerous and the most humane assessment of our place in the great unknown we call the Universe."

The following are some of the final paragraphs in the story:

Stack found the mad one wandering in the forest of final moments. He was an old, tired man, and Stack knew with a wave of his hand he could end it for this god in a moment. But what was the reason for it? It was even too late for revenge. It had been to late from the start. So he let the old one go on his way, wandering in the forest, mumbling to himself, I won't let you do it, in the voice of a cranky child; mumbling pathetically, Oh, please, I don't want to go to bed yet. I'm not done playing.

And Stack came back to Snake, who had served his function and protected Stack until Stack had learned that he was more powerful than the god he'd worshipped all through the history of Men. He came back to Snake and their hands touched and the bond of friendship was sealed at last, at the end.

Then they worked together and Nathan Stack used the needle with a wave of his hands, and the Earth could not sigh with relief as its endless pain was ended...but it did sigh, and it settled in upon itself, and the molten core went out, and the winds died, and from high above them Stack heard the fulfillment of Snake's final act; he heard the desent of the Deathbird.

Harlan Ellison is a self-declared Atheist.

What? No, I didn't say I had a point.

[lo_res_man]

limpingFish, I don't believe in Genesis as literal truth, for one, the bible was written by human beings, and while it has beautiful poetry, its more metaphorical to me then anything else. therefore the story of Adam and Eve is more a story (just like hundreds of others) that tells how death came into the world, lots myths on that. But I do believe (as a philosopher, my religious beliefs are different)in a Source. Yes life is matter in motion, but I think the human mind is so much more. how do you explain the "I" the part that decides to type this response rather then oh pick its nose,, the "I"  that decides between to equally compelling forces, the "I" that makes murder wrong. Why death is such a trajidy , no matter who it is that dies.  I prefer to think that there is something greater then ourselves, and weather I am right or not, the thought comforts me. So, I will stick with my "Illusions", and live a life filled with curiosity. Thank you 

[LimpingFish]

Nothing wrong with taking comfort in a belief that something "Better" lies beyond. Nothing at all. In fact I would never go out of my way to convince anybody otherwise.

But if it was just a case of "This is what I believe, that is what you believe, and never the twain shall meet." then the problems we face in confronting religious issues would cease to be.

I don't mind if people believe in Creation or Evolution. That are entitled to their beliefs and feelings as much anyone else.

Organized Religion of any sort doesn't feature in my life. I am an Agnostic...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic
...and will remain so until I decide otherwise.

But organizations/individuals attempting to influence society based on what "God would want" only frustrate and annoy me to the point of swaying my agnosticism towards a more atheistic view that God obviously does NOT exist, because these people who divide and segregate, who instill hatred, who have brought this level of fundamentalism to the world, must obviously be insane. The alternitive is too horrific to contemplate.

[lo_res_man]

I agree with what your saying about fundamentalists, and such. Religion has been you used as the excuse for many of human histories worst atrocities. It greatly saddens me, because I think religion should be a force to help people, like what world vision does

[jfritzyb]

...in recent times I've found myself on the other side of the Christian faith, no longer believing or caring about religion, doctrine or anything else like that.Ã,  So obviously, I've got a lot of stuff to work out now.Ã,  But I realize now, I really don't have anybody to talk to, because everybody I've ever known closely is a Christian!!Ã,  If I talk to them, their solution will of course be, "Talk to Jesus."Ã, 

I'd rather not go there now.Ã,  I need to try to speak to people who won't try to steer everything back to salvation, doctrine, etc.

So, for clarification, I'm no longer a Christian.Ã,  I'm kinda just sitting on the fence, I guess.

Now, what happened tonight: I was invited to go to my old school for a get together.Ã,  That school, which I attended last year, is a Christian high school.Ã,  Well, some of my old school friends and I got to talking politics, and they've never quite cared for my anti-Bush views.Ã,  After it was all said and done, we had wandered back and fourth from politics to religion, from religion to politics.

What stood out to me was, at the end of our discussion, I elaborated that I was glad they had a religion that made them happy and that gave them a purpose.Ã,  But I said, "Please don't try to influence this country and its politics and laws based on your Bible."

That didn't go over well, because evidently, this country belongs to God and we've gotta give it back to him, etc.Ã, 

Despite the fact that the world is full of folks who think their ideology should be made law, it was still kind of a disturbing display of, quite frankly, obsessed fundamentalism.Ã, 

These radical Christians who believe that we've got to reshape this country to fall in line with the Bible don't seem to perceive that their desire to legislate people into being Christians is blatantly unAmerican.Ã,  I said, "Well, how would you feel if I wanted to pass laws BANNING Christianity?"Ã,  And the reply was, "You'd be wrong, because this country was founded on God!"
These types seem to have a very direct and simple goal:Ã,  Sweep the entire country clean of liberals/democrats/homosexuals/non-Christians, and anybody else who they think that, because they are a political "enemy," they are also a religious enemy that must not be tolerated by any means, lest God destroy our nation.

So, part of what I want to do is measure the general opinion of these things here, so if you would, please provide a quick and simple answer to the four following questions in your post:

1.Ã,  Do the Christians (a majority) stand a chance of getting Bible-based legislation passed?

2.Ã,  Do you believe that Bible-based legislation SHOULD be passed?

3.Ã,  Do you feel that religion and politics intertwine naturally and that an American Theocracy in favor of the majority is inevitable?

4.Ã,  If a Christian juggernaut formed and began moving towards a Theocracy, what would you do? (Either to help it or stop it.)

All these things are spinning my mind around and around.Ã,  I just wanna start talking and see how you feel about these things, I'm not particularly interested in drawing sides and turning this into a debate.Ã,  That usually happens anyway, but let's just keep it calm as long as possible.

Firstly, I'd like to apologize for being very harsh, and at times, unattentive to what people had to say. I'd like to ask you all's forgiveness for acting in that fashion.

Secondly, I'd like to address a few of your issues in the best way that I know how...and that is, by asking a series of questions.

You stated earlier that at some point in the convo with your friends, you told your friends that it was great that they had a religion and all, but that they shouldn't use their religion to influence this country and its politics and laws. My question is, how would you personally go about running this country? What kind of people would you put in power over the country? What kind of laws would you set up? What would be allowed and what wouldn't be allowed?

2. Secondly, I ask you to remember what all happened in Vermont--with child molestors getting light sentences for committing different, abusive, and strange acts against children.

How would you personally go about getting these molestors under control?

3. I reiterate: How would you personally go about running a country and controlling the criminals in it? Who would you put in power over the country? What would you allow and what wouldn't you allow?



--JJ

[shitar]

Raggit you did the right thing in my opinion. I have stood by this idea for a long time: Religion is there to control people. Maybe not in an evil or cruel way, but it is there to control others.

[shitar]

Heres some more awesome words of wisdom from the Bible. If there are slight spelling mistakes please forgive me, because I don't care.

"Behold I will corrupt your seed, and spread dung upon your faces." Malachi 2:3

"For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death!" Leviticus 20:9

"Hath he not sent me to the men that sit upon the wall, that they may eat their own dung, and drink their own piss with you?" 2 Kings 18:27

"There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emmission was like that of horses." Ezekiel 23:20

"Suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence." 1 Timothy 2:12-15

"And thou shalt eat the fruit of thine own body, the flesh of thy sons and of thy daughters, which the LORD thy God hath given thee!" Deuteronomy 28:53

[MrColossal]

jfritzyb,

This is a very old topic that has been dead for months. PMing Raggit would get you a better response and would keep dead threads dead.

also... Can't help it but...

2. Secondly, I ask you to remember what all happened in Vermont--with child molestors getting light sentences for committing different, abusive, and strange acts against children.

I remember 1 judge sentencing 1 admitted child molester to enter treatment immediately or face a life sentence. PM me if you have different data that suggests multiple judges allowing multiple rapists to go free.