Religion

[timw4mail]

but the position you're describing here (god made the world but the world operates on its science-based rules) is basically the deistic position.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism

I'm not sure mainline evangelical baptists agree with you on that, by the way. Not that that matters.

I believe in a more personal God, Deists don't.


The other question is more difficult, as it raises the question of how are we supposed to determine right from wrong.

I believe that is an issue of biblical command, but I'd think you would disagree.

[ch_123]

Which is precisely my point. Can you rigorously re-create enough to know that your theory is true? The universe is an infinitely complex system of interconnected layers of other systems. How, realistically, can one re-create even a fraction of that?

I'd be lying if I said I could even imagine how that was true. But again, that indicative of a lack of knowledge in the area, not of the existence of God. A point which you continously seem to ignore.

[wellington1869]

Just an honest question:

Can you really NOT care?


While there is the high availability of funds to buy diversions, the question is squeezed out of thought...but when one is alone, or unable to purchase new diversions, the thought comes to mind, doesn't it?

I'm just curious as to whether one can factually not care.

This is a good question, I think.

Can I really "not care", as you put it?

Specifically, I assume you mean, "can you not care whether god exists?"

my response is: what kind of god?

Do I care whether a jealous god who demands his followers claim a universal monopoly on the Good, exists?
No, I dont care that that kind of god exists. I'd rather he didnt, actually. He's been nothing but trouble. He's been astonishingly destructive and immoral, even by the standard of his own declared laws.

What if you offered me a god who allowed people to experiment and act and improve their lives on their own? Accountable to each other? Recognizing each others basic divinity despite regional and cultural differences, differences which he sees as legitimate?
I wouldnt mind such a god. But such a god wouldnt mind my being an agnostic, either. In fact so long as my agnosticism produced a "live and let live" attitude, such a god might even find me to be ethical.

A thought expressed in this classic poem--

Abou Ben Adhem (may his tribe increase!)
Awoke one night from a deep dream of peace,
And saw, within the moonlight in his room,
Making it rich, and like a lily in bloom,
An angel writing in a book of gold:—
Exceeding peace had made Ben Adhem bold,
And to the Presence in the room he said
"What writest thou?"—The vision raised its head,
And with a look made of all sweet accord,
Answered "The names of those who love the Lord."
"And is mine one?" said Abou. "Nay, not so,"
Replied the angel. Abou spoke more low,
But cheerly still, and said "I pray thee, then,
Write me as one that loves his fellow men."

The angel wrote, and vanished. The next night
It came again with a great wakening light,
And showed the names whom love of God had blessed,
And lo! Ben Adhem's name led all the rest.

-leigh hunt

(leigh was a deist, btw )

[timw4mail]

I'd be lying if I said I could even imagine how that was true. But again, that indicative of a lack of knowledge in the area, not of the existence of God. A point which you continously seem to ignore.

What if we don't have the capability to understand enough? I've been trying to show this: we have too much faith in science.  

Looking at the infinite complexity of nature, to me points to a source of infinite knowledge. Since we can only be of finite knowledge, that, to me, points to the supernatural. Why do we try to fit the infinite into the confines of what is finite?

[wellington1869]

Just an honest question:

Can you really NOT care?


While there is the high availability of funds to buy diversions, the question is squeezed out of thought...but when one is alone, or unable to purchase new diversions, the thought comes to mind, doesn't it?

I'm just curious as to whether one can factually not care.

Or, if you mean, "can you not care that you're not "saved" and wont have "eternal life" after you die?"

Honestly, I dont care what happens to me after I die. I'm actually okay with that. I'm looking forward to my material remains feeding new life (maybe some nice daisies). My material body will become part of the universe again, and thats fine with me. (A kind of material reincarnation). My soul? There's no such thing - though if there were, I'd revolt against any metaphysical regime that demanded a monopoly and exclusivist claim on it.

[timw4mail]

This is a good question, I think.

Can I really "not care", as you put it?

Specifically, I assume you mean, "can you not care whether god exists?"

my response is: what kind of god?

Do I care whether a jealous god who demands his followers claim a universal monopoly on the Good, exists?
No, I dont care that that kind of god exists. I'd rather he didnt, actually. He's been nothing but trouble. He's been astonishingly destructive and immoral, even by the standard of his own declared laws.

What if you offered me a god who allowed people to experiment and act and improve their lives on their own? Accountable to each other? Recognizing each others basic divinity despite regional and cultural differences, differences which he sees as legitimate?
I wouldnt mind such a god. But such a god wouldnt mind my being an agnostic, either. In fact so long my agnosticism produced a "live and let live" attitude, such a god might even find me to be ethical.

Here's my question then, if God is not of our creation, but we a creation of God, how do we have the audacity to try to rationalize our behavior by our standards?

If God were of the latter type, why would there be a limited time of existence on earth? While a noble sentiment towards the nature of man, its flawed, (while not debating whether all man in inherently evil), it does no good to have a murderer accountable to another murderer.

It's not if every person doesn't have their own sins.

[ch_123]

You are saying that nature is so infinitely complicated that that there is an infinite amount of things to know, and as humans we will never be able to know everything that there is to be known. I can accept this theory as an being a valid viewpoint, but I don't see how infinity equals supernatural. Have you considered that maybe the universe just became that way by chance?

[wellington1869]

What if we don't have the capability to understand enough?

what is it you want to understand? do you want a law that can be applied to every aspect of the life cycle and applied to everyone on earth?
Me, I'm glad we dont have that capability. If you want it, you frighten me.

I've been trying to show this: we have too much faith in science.  

I wouldnt call it faith because of reasons already mentioned above, but if you want to call it that, then I'd say unlike the kind of religious faith you seem to be looking for, at least scientific 'faith' is open to correcting itself, revising itself, changing itself, based on what it discovers.  

Looking at the infinite complexity of nature, to me points to a source of infinite knowledge. Since we can only be of finite knowledge, that, to me, points to the supernatural. Why do we try to fit the infinite into the confines of what is finite?

scientists looked at infinite complexity and recognized that a handful of physical properties produced that complexity in predictable ways.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_theory

sometimes it pays not to be over-awed by nature.

[timw4mail]

Or, if you mean, "can you not care that you're not "saved" and wont have "eternal life" after you die?"

Honestly, I dont care what happens to me after I die. I'm actually okay with that. I'm looking forward to my material remains feeding new life (maybe some nice daisies). My material body will become part of the universe again, and thats fine with me. (A kind of material reincarnation). My soul? There's no such thing - though if there were, I'd revolt against any metaphysical regime that demanded a monopoly and exclusivist claim on it.

I don't understand how you can just deny the existence of a soul. What is it that makes you, you? Your body is a factor, sure. But your personality, you real essence, can't be explained by chemical processes.

I've always been suprised by the claim of open-mindedness, as its quite hypocritical. You can be open to the idea of a universal path of religion, but any exclusive spirituality, no, that's backwards and close-minded.

To be open to an idea, you have to consider all ideas with equal weight. You have to be able to allow an idea that you don't like, as much as the idea that you like.

If you have an all powerful creator, why doesn't the Creator have the right to set what rules he wishes on his Creation? Just because you don't want to be accountable to a higher power doesn't mean that it can't exist.

[timw4mail]

You are saying that nature is so infinitely complicated that that there is an infinite amount of things to know, and as humans we will never be able to know everything that there is to be known. I can accept this theory as an being a valid viewpoint, but I don't see how infinity equals supernatural. Have you considered that maybe the universe just became that way by chance?

How is that possible for chance to make order of disorder? To defy entropy?

If you look at the probability of it, its beyond the possibility. I really don't see how you can think that the universe could come to be by chance.  Would you care to elaborate?

[wellington1869]

Here's my question then, if God is not of our creation, but we a creation of God, how do we have the audacity to try to rationalize our behavior by our standards?

you could put this question a few different ways, for instance:
-how do we have the irresponsibility NOT to take accountability for our own actions?
-how do we have the audacity to assume we know god's will and god's history? And supposedly found it neatly written up in one perfect book to end all books?
Talk about audacity.

-why do you assume god would not want you to use the god-given powers of observation and judgement that He gave you?

Remember this allegory? --  A guy lives in a village and one day there is a great flood and the river overflows its banks and everything is flooded in the village. He climbs up on top of the roof of his house as the water levels rise. Rescue teams start appearing to help people. First a boat comes by, and the rescuers ask the guy to get in the boat since the water is going to continue to rise. He refuses. "God will save me!" he says. So eventually they leave because others need help. A helicopter comes by, they throw down a rope ladder. He refuses. "God will save me!". Later, a big piece of wood like a raft floats by, he could jump onto it if he wanted, but he says, no, "god will save me!".
The water rises, he drowns.
He meets god. "Why didnt' you save me?!" he asks. God says, "I sent you a boat, a helicopter, and a raft -- what the **** more did you want me to do?!!!!"

Your argument here is a little like this guy in the story. Why do you assume that intellect, observation, and the kinds of knowledge men can make, are inadmissable or illegitimate in god's world?
And if you admit them as valid but incomplete, why do you have the audacity to assume you "know" what completes it?

So who's being irresponsible now?

If God were of the latter type, why would there be a limited time of existence on earth?

what does that have to do with anything? Oh, I see, you're basically drawing on the original sin idea, which according to augustine is the root cause of human mortality itself.

well, since I dont buy augustinian theology, I guess I dont buy that connection between sin and mortality. We are mortal because our biological systems break down over time like everything else in the universe. If you want ultimate answers, I'm okay with not having them or with being content with what material knowledge can provide and not having the audacity or irresponsibility of claiming to know anything beyond that.

As for men and sin, no not all men are evil, it depends on your upbringing and environment, but nor do we need to be "perfectly" good to have a functioning society (the idea that we do, is another unwarranted blanket assumption from christian theology). Imperfect beings are perfectly capable of creating systems of checks and balances and thus a functioning society with a functioning judicial system (it need not be perfect; it only needs to be sufficient).
Thus even two 'murderers' (as you put it -- interesting that you can only make your case by taking extreme examples of sin, as if everyone was a murderer or as if everyone would become murderers without (your) god's law), so yes even two 'murderers' are capable of policing each other and keeping each other from 'murdering' in a system of checks and balances. Not that I accept your premise that we would all turn suddenly into inveterate 'murderers' if it wasnt for gods law (hell, 'gods law' has turned more people into murderers than anything else in the 1800 years when it reigned over european society).

And so yes, i'm okay with there being functioning justice system and I'm not looking for a "perfect" one. I'm not that "audacious", to use your word.

[ch_123]

How is that possible for chance to make order of disorder? To defy entropy?

If you look at the probability of it, its beyond the possibility. I really don't see how you can think that the universe could come to be by chance.  Would you care to elaborate?

People used to say that about animals and plants...

[wellington1869]

How is that possible for chance to make order of disorder? To defy entropy?

maybe you need to look up systems theory and chaos theory. The question of how order comes out of apparent disorder is a big topic in the sciences and is the basis of a lot of physics and math.

[timw4mail]

People used to say that about animals and plants...

And I still do. How can all that complexity come out of chance?

The probability of such is still far higher than the possibility.  Even in the billions of years.

[ch_123]

Consider the parasite that causes River Blindness in African countries. The only way that it can sustain itself is by burying itself into people, and reproducing itself and causing serious damage the host body. If that organism was the result of intelligent design, God must have a very strange sense of humour...

Likewise, consider oil. God, in all his infinite wisdom, decides to create the most easily usable form of fuel in a rare, hard to extract substance that damages the environment (which he conviniently made rather fragile) and concentrates it in areas around people who believe in another God...

But of course, this is how he test us, right?

[timw4mail]

Your argument here is a little like this guy in the story. Why do you assume that intellect, observation, and the kinds of knowledge men can make, are inadmissable or illegitimate in god's world?
And if you admit them as valid but incomplete, why do you have the audacity to assume you "know" what completes it?

So who's being irresponsible now?

Woah, since when am I dismissing intellect? You assume because I believe the world started differently, that I dismiss intellect?

I'm just wondering the plausibility of the main premise of science, because I'm looking at what I can see, and it doesn't add up. Is that not the pursuit of intellect?

what does that have to do with anything? Oh, I see, you're basically drawing on the original sin idea, which according to augustine is the root cause of human mortality itself.

Augustine does not have any more authority than a normal person, so I don't see what you're getting at.

Even if you dismiss the Bible as fiction:
- The Bible is the most printed book, in all of history
- These copies are very diligent translations of very precise similarities
- Biblical history has been reasonably proven by archaeology.
- Many men have died to have a translation in their language

And for the record, I do not, nor have ever condoned the Roman Catholic sect, as they add to the bible with tradition.

Why would I want something that changes when I find out I am wrong, if I have something that doesn't change, because it IS right?

[wellington1869]

I don't understand how you can just deny the existence of a soul. What is it that makes you, you? Your body is a factor, sure. But your personality, you real essence, can't be explained by chemical processes.

of course it can! my conciousness is an emergent property of my biochemical complexity, which is itself a biochemical system capable of feedback and correction and conditioning. Why does conciousness or my personality even need to be anything more than that? It works fine as it is, I like it, I dont need to imagine it to be "magic" just because I like it or just because I dont immediately have all the answers to how some parts of it work. Just like physics, medicine constantly makes huge advances in understanding thanks to the scientific method and I expect medical science will continue to produce "miraculous" understandings of the complex feedback system that constitutes both human intelligence and the human organism.

In fact, its evangelicals who seek to stop those systems from functioning the way they should and the way they do.

I've always been suprised by the claim of open-mindedness, as its quite hypocritical. You can be open to the idea of a universal path of religion, but any exclusive spirituality, no, that's backwards and close-minded.

not at all - its precisely because of science's willingness to critique itself,  that you are enjoying your personal belief as a constitutionally-protected right.

now imagine if you lived in a theocracy.

If you have an all powerful creator, why doesn't the Creator have the right to set what rules he wishes on his Creation?

why does he? If he created individuals capable of reason, why would he be surprised when those humans exercised their god-given powers of reason? And decided their knowledge of god was in fact limited?

Just because you don't want to be accountable to a higher power doesn't mean that it can't exist.

just because you dont want to be accountable to your fellow man (or your own senses of observation and reason) doesnt mean they and those dont exist.

And again, this is why I dont really care whether "god exists." Its really kind of a silly question, I think. Its like my saying "I have a rabbit in my pants" and then we argue for centuries about that without my ever having to undo my pants.

This is why the more relevant question, in answer to my claim to have a rabbit in my pants,  is "so what?".

[timw4mail]

Consider the parasite that causes River Blindness in African countries. The only way that it can sustain itself is by burying itself into people, and reproducing itself and causing serious damage the host body. If that organism was the result of intelligent design, God must have a very strange sense of humour...

Pain is a result of sin. Sadly, people learn more through bad experiences than through good experiences.  Beyond that, I can not know the will of God.

Likewise, consider oil. God, in all his infinite wisdom, decides to create the most easily usable form of fuel in a rare, hard to extract substance that damages the environment (which he conviniently made rather fragile) and concentrates it in areas around people who believe in another God...

But of course, this is how he test us, right?

Actually oil makes a lot of sense, in the light of a global flood. Rapid burial of plant and animal remains, under the pressure of new land masses, and a few thousand years. That makes oil, does it not?

[ch_123]

Pain is a result of sin. Sadly, people learn more through bad experiences than through good experiences.  Beyond that, I can not know the will of God.

Yep, because the millions of children that go blind or die sooo deserved it...

Actually oil makes a lot of sense, in the light of a global flood. Rapid burial of plant and animal remains, under the pressure of new land masses, and a few thousand years. That makes oil, does it not?

You're ignoring my point. If something like oil was 'engineered' by a superior being, surely they could have designed something that didn't have all the aforementioned issues and then some - if God can magic the entire universe out of nothingness, surely he could make us an electricity tree or something?

My point is, there's a subtle yet important difference between something that works and something that is designed in an intelligent manner. Compare the haphazard street layouts in European cities that date back to the Medieval age with the block layout in cities like New York. They both work, but one works much better than the other.

[timw4mail]

In fact, its evangelicals who seek to stop those systems from functioning the way they should and the way they do.

Oh, stereotyping.
Besides medical technology being overly expensive, I don't have qualms about medical treatment.

not at all - its precisely because of science's willingness to critique itself,  that you are enjoying your personal belief as a constitutionally-protected right.

And yet science can not critique the world came to be in a statistically impossible way?

This is why the more relevant question, in answer to my claim to have a rabbit in my pants,  is "so what?".

Assuming the Bible is true, its your soul, and eternal torment.  But that's your call.

[wellington1869]

Woah, since when am I dismissing intellect? You assume because I believe the world started differently, that I dismiss intellect?

no, but if you base that belief only on desire without considering both evidence and counter-evidence, and dismissing material facts that interfere in your belief, and then drawing definite conclusions in the face of uncertain evidence, then yes, you're dismissing intellect. by definition.

I'm just wondering the plausibility of the main premise of science, because I'm looking at what I can see, and it doesn't add up. Is that not the pursuit of intellect?

it depends. If you're actively drawing conclusions without adequate evidence, or without saying cautiously (as scientists do) that what they have is a theory based on material evidence, then no, its not the pursuit of intelligence but is, rather, faith, belief, desire.

Augustine does not have any more authority than a normal person, so I don't see what you're getting at.

Even if you dismiss the Bible as fiction:
- The Bible is the most printed book, in all of history

so what? why does the bible have "any more authority than a normal book"? It was written by fallible humans too. And its contradictions and inaccuracies show that in spades.
now, if you want to apply reason to weed out its contradictions and inaccuracies - guess what - you're using your intellect!

the most printed book - what that demonstrates, if anything, is the extraordinary power of the church and the astonishing audacity of the missionary mindset.

- These copies are very diligent translations of very precise similarities

as martin luther showed convincingly, thats simply not true that the translations were either precise or diligent or even sincere. I'm not sure how much of the history of the protestant reformation you're aware of, but the question of the accuracy of biblical translations was front-and-center in that struggle.

- Biblical history has been reasonably proven by archaeology.

archeology shows that certain kings or societies existed in certain times. how does that in turn prove 'divinity' of the people or events in question? All myths have some basis in fact - even the greek myths have been 'proven' by archeology. Does that mean the greek gods were real, too?

- Many men have died to have a translation in their language

and this is relevant because...?

Why would I want something that changes when I find out I am wrong, if I have something that doesn't change, because it IS right?

because you're assuming (with incredible audacity), apriori, that something absolutely perfect dropped out of the sky into your lap, nicely bound with page numbers and chapter headings.

[timw4mail]

Yep, because the millions of children that go blind or die sooo deserved it...

Like I said, I can't comprehend the will of God.

You're ignoring my point. If something like oil was 'engineered' by a superior being, surely they could have designed something that didn't have all the aforementioned issues and then some - if God can magic the entire universe out of nothingness, surely he could make us an electricity tree or something?

Besides the fact the use for oil wasn't discovered until after oil was?
Perhaps God relegates the allowance of discovery?

There was no need for electricity or oil before it came into use. Not to mention that Creation was only perfect BEFORE sin.

[ch_123]

Like I said, I can't comprehend the will of God.

Or to be more specific, you don't want to try and comprehend it, because if you actually analyzed religious doctrine, you'd realize that there's an awful lot of things that just don't add up.

Not to mention that Creation was only perfect BEFORE sin.

So why did God create sin then?

- The Bible is the most printed book, in all of history
- These copies are very diligent translations of very precise similarities
- Biblical history has been reasonably proven by archaeology.
- Many men have died to have a translation in their language

The first three things could be said of the Harry Potter books, and as for the last one, well, just because people are prepared to die for something, doesn't mean that it's good or worthy of attention. 9/11 suicide bombers much?

[wellington1869]

Pain is a result of sin.  

well here I think we're coming upon the limit of any rational discussion, because at this point you're merely stating theology apriori as fact.

all we can do is point to contradictions or limits in your theology. Science, unlike faith, is perfectly willing to accept those limits - its a part of the scientific method to acknowledge them.  

In that respect science is both more moral and more responsbile that you're being, I think. Science's origin stories are called theory for a reason. They're not presented as immutable fact; they are presented as science-based theory, which is what they are.

Can you imagine  if evangelicals came to my door and said "here's a myth about the origins of the universe. what do you think?".  At least it would be honest - like science is honest about these things when it calls them theories. Then we could have a discussion about the difference between myth and theory, which would be useful (theory is based on science; myth is not); and discussions about the implications of different myths and different theories, which would be interesting and relevant for human society.

All that would be interesting because at least we would not be mistaking myth and theory, and we would not be assuming that the christian mythological model is the only viable model for religion. (Its not).

But confronted by strong belief, the rational part of the discussion would have to end sooner or later. And at that point we can go back to name-calling I guess. As christians and atheists have done for centuries.

[wellington1869]

Oh, stereotyping.

lol, how is that stereotyping? evangelicals spread belief, if they didnt, they cant work as evangelicals. Its what missiology is about. Thats their job.

Besides medical technology being overly expensive, I don't have qualms about medical treatment.

then you must be in favor of universal health care?

And yet science can not critique the world came to be in a statistically impossible way?

you keep saying its statistically impossible - on what basis do you say that? cuz you're personally over-awed by nature's complexity?

Assuming the Bible is true, its your soul, and eternal torment.  But that's your call.

lol, i'll take my chances, thanks. mainly because i dont assume 'the bible is true'.  I could never be that 'audacious'.

[timw4mail]

no, but if you base that belief only on desire without considering both evidence and counter-evidence, and dismissing material facts that interfere in your belief, and then drawing definite conclusions in the face of uncertain evidence, then yes, you're dismissing intellect. by definition.

Of course you ignore the fact that you are also acting on beliefs in the outcomes of your arguments. You just can't let science be wrong.

it depends. If you're actively drawing conclusions without adequate evidence, or without saying cautiously (as scientists do) that what they have is a theory based on material evidence, then no, its not the pursuit of intelligence but is, rather, faith, belief, desire.

so what? why does the bible have "any more authority than a normal book"? It was written by fallible humans too. And its contradictions and inaccuracies show that in spades.
now, if you want to apply reason to weed out its contradictions and inaccuracies - guess what - you're using your intellect!

Contradictions and inaccuracies. Show me.

as martin luther showed convincingly, thats simply not true that the translations were either precise or diligent or even sincere. I'm not sure how much of the history of the protestant reformation you're aware of, but the question of the accuracy of biblical translations was front-and-center in that struggle.

And, the Latin Vulgate is never used for translations, but direct Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.  The 'translation' was vulgar, and was rejected.

Once again, I do not have involvement with the Roman Catholic sect, nor do I condone their actions.

archeology shows that certain kings or societies existed in certain times. how does that in turn prove 'divinity' of the people or events in question? All myths have some basis in fact - even the greek myths have been 'proven' by archeology. Does that mean the greek gods were real, too?

Its factuality in events is still shown by archaeology.

The Greek 'gods' were mere idols and corruptions of what was true.

For that matter, when it pertains to actual observable science, the Bible has often shown the reality of the science.

because you're assuming (with incredible audacity), apriori, that something absolutely perfect dropped out of the sky into your lap, nicely bound with page numbers and chapter headings.

Oh, and there wasn't the period of time before A.D. that it was written, across different time periods, different languages, and still coherent in meaning and intent?

 Do I sound stupid? As I said, my belief in God does not change the fact that the world works the way it does.

[timw4mail]

Or to be more specific, you don't want to try and comprehend it, because if you actually analyzed religious doctrine, you'd realize that there's an awful lot of things that just don't add up.



So why did God create sin then?

God did not create sin. Sin came into being out of the rebellion of Lucifer. Sin is rebellion against God.

The first three things could be said of the Harry Potter books, and as for the last one, well, just because people are prepared to die for something, doesn't mean that it's good or worthy of attention. 9/11 suicide bombers much?

Why so many deaths for so many centuries? Nothing you described comes close to that.

[timw4mail]

then you must be in favor of universal health care?

I don't really see the connection you think you are drawing.

[ch_123]

God did not create sin. Sin came into being out of the rebellion of Lucifer. Sin is rebellion against God.

Did God not create Lucifer? Is God not all powerful?

Its factuality in events is still shown by archaeology.

The Greek 'gods' were mere idols and corruptions of what was true.

How do you know that? And what is your opinion on the other Gods such as Yaweh, Allah etc?

For that matter, when it pertains to actual observable science, the Bible has often shown the reality of the science.

Where?

[wellington1869]

Contradictions and inaccuracies. Show me.

-you want me to do for you what you could find out with the most rudimentary google and amazon search?

-your response here says a lot. For instance, it says you have no interest in searching, by yourself, for counter-evidence, or finding answers to your own questions about the bible.

-and the rest of your response there indicates the same, since you've gone back to merely restating theological positions as apriori "known" facts. Sin, mortality, lucifer, etc.

yes, we understand that you believe in the literal bible. but you really only have two choices if you want to talk to others about it, right?  You can "induce" faith in others by talking about the power of belief in your life as you've experienced it, or  you can discuss the bible "rationally" which is a discussion of facts and qualifications and limits.  

It doesnt appear you're all that interested in the latter except where it can help you do the former.

[wellington1869]

btw o2dazone, i'm seriously thinking of getting 'ordained' here
http://www.uctaa.net/

i wonder if FSM has an ordination process too. I'd really like to conduct weddings!

[timw4mail]

Did God not create Lucifer? Is God not all powerful?

Free will exists, and sin does fulfill a purpose.

How do you know that?

Lucifer means 'Morning Star'.


Ezekiel 28 14-15 (ESV)
You were an anointed guardian cherub. I placed you; you were on the holy mountain of God; in the midst of the stones of fire you walked. You were blameless in your ways from the day your were created, till unrighteousness was found in you.

Isiah 14:12-15 (ESV)
How you are fallen from heaven, O Day Star, son of Dawn! How you are cut down to the ground, you who laid the nations low! You said in your hear, 'I will ascend to heaven; above the stars of God I will set my throne on high; I will sit on the mount of assembly in the far  reaches of the north; I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High.' But you are brought down to Sheol, to the far reaches of the pit.

And what is your opinion on the other Gods such as Jaweh, Allah etc?

While not talking about Islam, these are all names of the same God. Jaweh is the vowel-less Hebrew word for the reverent name of God. Allah is simply God in Arabic.  

Where?

1. The Earth is Round
2.  The Expansion of the Universe

Isaiah 40:22 (ESV)
It is he who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers; who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them like a tent to dwell in;

[ch_123]

Free will exists, and sin does fulfill a purpose.

What purpose? Or is too profound for us mere mortals to comprehend?

Ezekiel 28 14-15 (ESV)
...

Isiah 14:12-15 (ESV)
...

Again, you are trying to prove the validity of what you believe in terms of a book who's validity depends on the validity of your beliefs.

While not talking about Islam, these are all names of the same God. Jaweh is the vowel-less Hebrew word for the reverent name of God. Allah is simply God in Arabic.

When I said "How do you know?" I was saying that in reference to your statement about the Greek Gods. The Islam and Judaism examples may not have been the best, but let's take for example Hindus - Do you believe they are all going to burn in the fires of hell for believing in the "wrong" (I stress quotation marks) religion?

[wellington1869]

Again, you are trying to prove the validity of what you believe in terms of a book who's validity depends on the validity of your beliefs.

thats exactly right. tim, you keep doing this. you keep quoting as true what needs to be proven true.
you're 'begging the question', a logical fallacy, petitio principii i think its called.

[Mr.6502]

I rarely encounter people these days that seem to take such stock in the bible.

Can I ask you what your take is on human slavery?  Selling daughters to other men?  Stuff like that?

[ch_123]

Wellington, I assume you are referring to timw4mail as opposed to me? =P

[wellington1869]

I assume you are referring to timw4mail as opposed to me? =P

lol, yes. i clarified with an edit
(I thought my post might have been unclear )

[timw4mail]

When I said "How do you know?" I was saying that in reference to your statement about the Greek Gods. The Islam and Judaism examples may not have been the best, but let's take for example Hindus - Do you believe they are all going to burn in the fires of hell for believing in the "wrong" (I stress quotation marks) religion?

Yes, I do.

[wellington1869]

Yes, I do.

mind blowing audacity? yes, mind blowing audacity.

[timw4mail]

I rarely encounter people these days that seem to take such stock in the bible.

Can I ask you what your take is on human slavery?  Selling daughters to other men?  Stuff like that?

I don't believe in human slavery, as in human trafficking.  On the other hand, as a punishment for crimes, I don't have a problem with temporary forced servitude.

Selling daughters to other men? You aren't talking dowry, I assume?

[timw4mail]

mind blowing audacity? yes, mind blowing audacity.

What audacity? To believe something that's exclusive?

It's not like I hate other people because they have different beliefs.  I don't find it funny to point out the inconsistencies in the evolutionary/humanistic belief system.

I have the audacity to be consistent?

[wellington1869]

I rarely encounter people these days that seem to take such stock in the bible.

They're a huge subculture, the biblical literalists, especially in the midwest where they're in the majority in a lot of red state towns.  They're in a permanent state of war against modernity (and with a permanent sense of being under seige). I dated an evangelical for 3 years (I'm happy to say she broke all the commandments with me ) but of course there was no way it could have worked out in the long run. Suffice to say the evangelical subculture no longer surprises me. I got all the surprise out of my system in those three (traumatic) years.

[Mr.6502]

No I mean the parts of the bible that say stuff like:

"As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you.  You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their clans that are with you, who have been born in your land, and they may be your property.  You may bequeath them to your sons after you to inherit as a possession forever. You may make slaves of them, but over your brothers the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another ruthlessly."

And:

"When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do."

[wellington1869]

I don't find it funny to point out the inconsistencies in the evolutionary/humanistic belief system.

you dont have to - the humanist system itself seeks to identify factual inconsistencies, acknowledge them, and correct them whenever possible. They consider it an ethical value to be that way -  Unlike, say, biblical literalists

I have the audacity to be consistent?

but you're not being consistent. You're being rigid. its an important difference. You can only be rigid by being INconsistent.


As far as audacity - is it audacious to think of yourself as being in a position to condemn the majority of humanity to hell? You betcha.

[timw4mail]

No I mean the parts of the bible that say stuff like:

"As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you.  You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their clans that are with you, who have been born in your land, and they may be your property.  You may bequeath them to your sons after you to inherit as a possession forever. You may make slaves of them, but over your brothers the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another ruthlessly."

And:

"When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do."

First of all, please give references. I'd like to study that passage a bit more.

Generally, though, with the New Testament, and the establishing of the new law, such laws in the Old Testiment are historical reference.

[ch_123]

Yes, I do.

Does it bother you to think that if you were born in India you would probably say the same thing about people who believe in your God?

[timw4mail]

you dont have to - the humanist system itself seeks to identify factual inconsistencies, acknowledge them, and correct them whenever possible. They consider it an ethical value to be that way -  Unlike, say, biblical literalists

You keep bring up ethics. Where do you base your ethics? On cultural shifts and flows? How is right and wrong subject to change?

but you're not being consistent. You're being rigid. its an important difference. You can only be rigid by being INconsistent.

Inconsistent with your beliefs? I thought we were supposed to be open to other belief systems. I though we were supposed to tolerate, even with things that we do not agree with.

As far as audacity - is it audacious to think of yourself as being in a position to condemn the majority of humanity to hell? You betcha.

I'm not saying that I have that authority. God has that authority.

[wellington1869]

You keep bring up ethics. Where do you base your ethics? On cultural shifts and flows? How is right and wrong subject to change?

in the same way that christian ethics was subject to change - from the early jewish followers of christ, to paul's intervention extending it to the greeks in Acts based on his interpretation of christ's message, to the formation of the early regional christian sects based on their interpretations of ethics, to the crushing of those sects by the bishop of rome based on his interpretation and ethics, to the splits between the eastern and western churches over arguments of interpretation and ethics, to the splits between the popes (the era of multiple popes) in the western church over their interpretation of christian ethics, to the protestant reformation based on arguments over ethics and interpretation, to the rise of 'rational theology' in response to the enlightenment, to the revivalist movements of the late 18th to early 20th centuries in america, which provided the particular background (baptist) in which you became eventually involved.

Ethics shifts exactly as it has in christian history - unless you dont know christian history.

Inconsistent with your beliefs? I thought we were supposed to be open to other belief systems. I though we were supposed to tolerate, even with things that we do not agree with.

I tolerate your beliefs just fine. In fact I would defend your right to believe in a plate of spagetti with meatballs, if thats what you wanted. Its you who are not exhibiting that tolerance. I'm not condemning the majority of humanity to hell - you are!

I'm not saying that I have that authority. God has that authority.

whats teh difference? arent you condemning the majority of humanity to hell in gods name? Arent you the one claiming to know god's message in that regard well enough to do that?

[ch_123]

You keep bring up ethics. Where do you base your ethics? On cultural shifts and flows? How is right and wrong subject to change?

Well, the problem with religions is that they take the morals of the time and stick rigidly to them. This is why the bible still has a line in the book of Leviticus that says (to the best of my recollection) - "A man must not have relations with another man, for God hates this."

I also note that there's huge inconsistencies between various Christian sects as to what is considered right, and what is completely frowned upon, and within those sects the attitudes of the believers vary. What you are saying may have remote basis if the very thing you stick to didnt have such a pick and mix nature to it.

It follows that as society evolves, certain things that were essential in the past are no longer relevant. For example, do you eat kosher food? Do you still think that those who suffer from mental illnesses should be burned to death for 'being possesed'? Or that the suicidal should be hanged to punish them for trying to defy God's will?

[o2dazone]

You keep bring up ethics. Where do you base your ethics? On cultural shifts and flows? How is right and wrong subject to change?

"Usually I follow the Judao-Christian ethic of 'Thou shalt not kill'. But, that's just me."