"You can't prove God doesn't exist!" [Archive] - Yu-Gi-Oh!: The Abridged Series

CrazyKook

05-21-2008, 03:05 PM

For the sake of discussion, I'm going to try looking at this at differently than I normally would. These comments may not necessarily represent my own opinions.-Santa Claus exists.
Through observation, it can be shown that it's actually your parents. Gathering "evidence" and what-not, will show that santa didn't do of the presents stuff. Plus, your parents will admit to having made it up, and they won't lie for no good reason.-The invisible pink unicorn created the universe.
Well, yeah, if it's pink, it's not invisible... but the fact that an invisible unicorn may have made the universe? Looking at all the evidence of how it was/most likely to have been created, a unicorn will not have been physically able to create any of it, even if unicorns did exist.-There is an invisible, massless teacup orbiting the Sun. (It can orbit the sun because it doesn't follow laws of physics)
As in a normal teacup or what? Well an astronaut MAY have chucked a teacup out the shuttle, but I doubt it. I can't really disprove this, since I can't go and check it out myself.-The ghost of Elvis haunts my house.
If photographs or other similar evidence could be provided, then it could be proved. However, this can't be completely disproved, I think either.-My hand is actually a bug with six horns.
Well, you would know the answer to this one. Look at it. I'm sure it's not a bug, but for all I know, your hand may actually be bug.
Even if you don't see your hand as a bug, it may still be one. Your brain could be interpreting this bug as what you see your hand to be. Everything you see, smell, taste, whatever is regulated by your brain, right? And it's left to the interpretation of your brain? Well, it all depends on how your brain interprets it, so the reality may actually be something else to what you think. And there's no way of checking with anyone else, because they know the description of what you will say, and it will match the interpretation of their mind, regardless whether it actually is the same or not.

Darn it, I'm sorry for that philosophical bit of nonsense there. It is something I've thought about before. I hope it makes sense <img src='/images/emoticons/smiley5.png'> -Hitler decided to make the greatest cake in the world instead of becoming Fuhrer 1 octillion years ago.
Very unlikely.
Although if you believe in re-incarnation, then it may be possible. I know that the world isn't that old, but who said that it couldn't take place on another world?-God exists.
I really can't prove or disprove this. That's a matter of faith, really.

Well, that's my shot at it, and I tried to do it as open-mindedly as possible ^_^

WeirdSmells

05-21-2008, 10:36 PM

<i>Post censored by DarkWarrior.</i>

WillPhanto1

05-21-2008, 11:33 PM

So, are you talking about the Jewish/Christian God, or any god? Anyway, here are my answers:

-Santa Claus exists.
Santa Claus is a figure primary inspired by Saint Nicholas of Myra, and became a canon character after "The Night Before Christmas". Though not a physical person, he inspires good will and cheer, and serves as a means to capture the spirit of the Christmas and the Holiday Day season.
In many ways Santa Claus does exists.

-The invisible pink unicorn created the universe.
This seems pretty random, with no real reason for this statement other then to push a point.

-There is an invisible, massless teacup orbiting the Sun. (It can orbit the sun because it doesn't follow laws of physics)
Same as the one before.

-The ghost of Elvis haunts my house.
Perhaps the house held some significance to Elvis in life.

-My hand is actually a bug with six horns.
You probably should sue that surgeon that reattached your hand after that accident.

-Hitler decided to make the greatest cake in the world instead of becoming Fuhrer 1 octillion years ago.
Same as the unicorn and teacup questions.

-God exists.
Yet, again, are you speaking of the God of Israel? Or any god for that matter.
Many people who worship and pray to God, often say they can feel God, or the Holy Spirit moving through them. As well as many other spiritual people clam feeling a presence in the universe, that very well may be God. To brush aside spiritual experiences in people as superstition nonsense, seems to be a cheap way of trying to void their experiences.
As well physical perfections in the universe seem too unlikely to happen on their own. The fact that we're the right distance from the Sun, The fact that moon orbits the Earth in such a way that we always see the same side of the Moon. The fact that every life-cycle works with another life-cycle that works with a bigger life cycle. The fact we developed minds and imaginations that contemplates philosophy and intangible matters beyond the tasks of survival. The fact that so many feel the urge to reach out and call "How you there?" . . . and then feel the answer "Yes, I Am."

littlekuribohrulz20

05-21-2008, 11:47 PM

this always ends up in flaming.ALWAYS.

those who DO NOT believe in god, and those who do.We all have different ideas.Lets keep them to ourselves.

It would make everybody happy if a lock where to follow.

Henriksson

05-22-2008, 08:26 AM

You pulled that completely out of context... read it again.That opening post should be used in the oxford dictionaries definition of stupidity.
For making such a grand statement, you don't seem to have much elaboration on why. So your comment is null and void until you have explained why.

Henriksson

05-22-2008, 08:28 AM

Maslessness is impossible.
The cup doesn't follow the laws of physics.
God doesn't follow the laws of physics.

Are you saying God is impossible?

WillPhanto1

05-22-2008, 09:00 AM

I'm guessing you're talking about the Jewish/Christian God, which unlike other gods who have physical images/forms and resides in their respective locations, he exists as a omnipresent being that is transcendent to His creation and yet immanent in relating to creation.

I found this while researching:(Thomas C Oden "The Living God: Systematic Theology Vol 1 pg 67). God's presence is continuous throughout all of creation, though it may not be revealed in the same way at the same time every where to people. At times, he may be actively present in a situation, while he may not reveal that he is present in another circumstance in some other area. The Bible reveals that God can be both present to a person in a manifest manner (Psalm 46:1, Isaiah 57:15) as well as being present in every situation in all of creation at any given time (Psalm 33:13-14). Specifically, Oden states (pg. 68-69) that the Bible shows that God can be present in every aspect of human life:
* God is naturally present in every aspect of the natural order, in every level of causality, every fleeting moment and momentous event of natural history...(Psalm 8:3, Isaiah 40:12, Nahum 1:3)
* God is actively present in a different way in every event in history as provident guide of human affairs (Psalm 48:7)
* God is in a special way attentively present to those who call upon his name, intercede for others, who adore God, who petition, who pray earnestly for forgiveness (Gospel of Matthew 18:19, Book of Acts 17:27)
* God is judicially present in moral awareness, through conscience (Psalm 48:1-2, Epistle to the Romans 1:20)
* God is bodily present in the incarnation of his Son, Jesus Christ (Gospel of John 1:14, Colossians 2:9)
* God is mystically present in the Eucharist, and through the means of grace in the church, the body of Christ (Ephesians 2:12, John 6:56)
* God is sacredly present and becomes known in special places where God chooses to meet us, places that become set apart by the faithful remembering community (1 Corinthians 11:23-29) where it may be said: "Truly the Lord is in this place" (Genesis 28:16, Matthew 18:20)"

Henriksson

05-22-2008, 09:52 AM

I'm talking about any diety.

Underling

05-22-2008, 10:09 AM

desu

DarkWarrior

05-22-2008, 03:09 PM

Can we, like, act mature here?
If not, topic closure soon...

araharu

05-22-2008, 08:16 PM

Those who believe in a higher power and those who do not really have no scientific argument to back them up in my opinion. Those who believe in God, or Allah, or whatever (such as myself) have no physical or scientific evidence to support our beliefs, just faith and passed-down tradition. Likewise, those who do not believe in a higher power have no answers to such questions as "How did the Big Bang occur?" "When/how did the creation of life start?" and so forth. This is really an argument based on faith and deep-rooted beliefs, and as such, there is really no debate to be had here in my opinion.

Underling

05-23-2008, 06:56 AM

desu

HeavyDDR

05-23-2008, 07:44 AM

HEY GUY BLAH BLAH BLAH MY BELIEFS.

HEY GUY BLAH BLAH BLAH PROVE IT.

WELL IN MY RELIGION--

WELL IN MY RELIGION--

WELL IN MY RELIGION--

WELL IN MY RELIGION--

WELL IN MY IMAGINATION--

WELL IN MY IMAGINATION--

I have no friends.

Me neither.

Edit: And freaking Christ, we're talking about God existing or not and the original topic creator is basically typing with his sheer shit because he thinks that because a pink invisible unicorn doesn't exist, OBVIOUSLY God doesn't.

My stand is that God exists, but I don't think he was a bearded man who cures cancer with his eyesight. I'll worship whatever created this universe. If it was a rock, then it was a mother fucking rock and I don't care what you say. <-- Basis of all religions.

allnx

05-25-2008, 12:11 AM

ok, you guys are sort've missing the point. i am now going to "disprove" all your "disproving" statements

1.Santa Claus exists.
Response: santa claus cannot exist because of all the different time zones and the speed he has to travel to get to each house.
Rebuttal: santa claus can control time.

2.An invisible pink unicorn created the universe.
Response:something cannot be invisible and pink.
Rebuttal obviously something that has the power to create the universe cannot be described by our earthly physics or logic.

3.an invisible massless teacup is orbiting the sun.
response: masslessness is impossible.
Rebuttal: see #2.

4. SKIP

5.My hand is actually a bug with six horns.
response: just look.
rebuttal: it could be in disguise. <img src='/images/emoticons/smiley7.png'>

I'm too tired to write any more.

My religion doesn't have a god. Go fig.

khane

05-26-2008, 01:19 PM

1.Santa Claus exists.
2.The invisible pink unicorn created the universe.
3.There is an invisible, massless teacup orbiting the Sun. (It can orbit the sun because it doesn't follow laws of physics)
4.The ghost of Elvis haunts my house.
5.My hand is actually a bug with six horns.
6.Hitler decided to make the greatest cake in the world instead of becoming Fuhrer 1 octillion years ago.
7.God exists.
1. Via logic and what we know, can't really disprove him. On the other hand, we can say it's highly unlikely that he exists.

2. Something can be invisible and pink, as long as you take invisibility to be subjective. If something is invisible to humans, does that mean it can't be pink as well? No. There are a lot of things humans can't see. Also, if said "pink unicorn" has the ability to turn invisible to visible and vice versa, and was just invisible at the time of the creation of the universe, then yes it could have created the universe.

3. Masslessness is impossible as we know it, so for now, no.

4. Depends whether ghosts exist or not, then also whether they "haunt" your house. Impossible to disprove.

5. Empricistic response: Just look
Rationalistic response: Is what I see merely an illusion?
Conclusion: Depends on whether you're more empiricistic or rationalistic. Disprovable only through pure empiricism.

6.? That's just kind of silly....

7. Disprovable? Nope. Provable? Nope.

Nina

05-27-2008, 01:00 AM

Atheists see that there is absolutely no evidence for that, but theists shrug and say that there is no evidence that God doesn't exist and so says theists are just as correct as atheists.
It's true that you can't disprove that there is an invisible pink unicorn or mass of spaghetti or what have you watching over us. Make up any deity and no one can disprove its existence because there's always circumstances like Ohhh the unicorn is invisible, that's why you don't see it and therefore don't think it exists etc. etc. But I believe that atheists have logic and reason supporting them. I'm an atheist and I feel as though I know for a fact that there is no supreme being, because it seems as though "prophets" invented religions and people follow because they want to believe that there is life after death and that there is someone always watching over them. It's painful to think otherwise, but you can't hide from the truth. No offense to anyone religious, everyone's entitled to their beliefs.

JesusRocks

05-27-2008, 05:14 AM

Flaw: If God created and sustains everything, then it would be impossible for God to defy the laws of physics because, quite frankly, whatever He does in the universe is completely natural.

In other words, we call miracles and wonders "supernatural" ... however, considering the above, then the occurence of these things, be they common or rare, are de facto "natural" by definition...
__________________________________________________ ________________________________________
@Nina: I take no offense to your religious views (to use the term broadly) ... however, moving aside from religious beliefs for a second, I do think it is unfair for you to imply that those who do believe in God do not have logic or reasoning.

I know it's a common thought, although most common amongst those atheists of the Dawkins persuasion (I am not suggesting that you are one, just pointing out where this view is most common), that all people of faith are deluded, narrow-minded, unreasonable, bigoted, illogical, unintelligent etc... whereas all people of science are enlightened, broad-minded, have the ability to reason, are unbiased, have the ability to use logic and are intelligent.

However, this is a gross misgeneralisation (yes I said that, lol), and especially rich coming from those atheists who have been affectionately termed "militant"... The above paragraph in and of itself is highly bigoted and narrow-minded... it's a simple "us and them" argument, trying to split the world into a stark contrast which, really, does not fit with the way the world is...

Theists and Atheists alike seem to be using different definitions of the terms "broad minded" and "narrow minded"
- Some theists (typically the "militant") think that atheists are narrow-minded because atheists (typically the "militant" ones) are so focused on science and the physical, that they do not open up their minds to the possibility of the existence of the spiritual
- Some atheists think that theists are narrow-minded because they believe that theists reject science and understanding, instead turning to superstition. In other words, they do not open their minds to the existence of the physical, and focus purely on the spiritual.

The strange thing here is that both can be true... yet both can also be false... at the same time. There are thousands upon thousands of highly intelligent, logical and reasonable people who believe in God, and they are not superstitious at all... and probably quite a few of them are scientists themselves, having authority and respect among the scientific community, without having to compromise on their beliefs for the sake of "science". Alistair McGrath, himself a scientist, and former colleague of Richard Dawkins (went to the same University)... is also a Christian. That is to name but one person...

Likewise there are thousands upon thousands of highly unintelligent, illogical, unreasonable atheists...

Please, be more careful when you speak the differences between atheism and theism... These kinds of topics are typically unforgiving in terms of misstatements... While getting things wrong is human, you can be sure that no-one else will allow your mistake to go unnoticed... as I have learned from experience

I am sorry for going on what seems like a rant... but this is the kind of stuff you (generally) will get if you make throw away comments in a topic which has a high flame-risk. I apologise for any offense caused.

Prodigs

05-27-2008, 02:41 PM

I'm on the same level as you, but is there a difference between not believing in God, and not believing in religion? And of course, is there a difference between believing in a God, and believing in 'The Lord'. I'm an atheist, on the grounds that I see chrisitanity, the religion I grew up under, as trying to make you police your every thought and action, supressing natural and healthy urges, all for some crime you didn't commit. It's like making me believe I'm sick...then selling me the cure.

But keeping with the core idea of the thread, that God exists (either as a deity or as a supernatural enitity) simply because we cannot prove it otherwise, is it even worth arguing? Not that I would ruin a healthy debate, but to argue the existance of God with a "It's there because we don't know it isn't" approach simply locks the arguement in a stalemate. Yes, those for God can assume they've proven them wrong, the fact that they're now arguing about whether there's proof for God's existance kind of shows they see it as a believable concept, but overall no total conclusion can be gathered by either stance with this cop out.

JesusRocks

05-27-2008, 03:13 PM

I'm going have to say here... Christianity should absolutely not have made you feel that way at all... I am shocked that your experience of the church has made you feel like that, and I am really sorry...

The horrific fact of the matter is, a lot of atheists that I have talked to online... most of them American (it's not all that common to find someone from the UK online at all)... are atheist because of a church that had a really unloving attitude... and for that, I can only apologise...

Personally, as someone who was not brought up in a Christian environment, but instead came to faith around 2 and a half years ago... I can say that I never "police my thoughts"... or suppress "natural healthy urges" and in reality, you shouldn't have to...

I can't speak for those people brought up in a Christian home... I can imagine that it would be a lot harder for them to come to faith of their own choice because I know that with my life, there is a stark contrast between how I used to be and how I am now... and it's a really, really good difference... whereas if you are told constantly and having it rammed in like that especially if your parents or local church has very conservative views, you will either reject it, which isn't good... or blindly accept it, which is equally as bad.

Prodigs

05-27-2008, 03:38 PM

Fair enough. I'm not saying a negative experience in christanity can also drive you away from God, if anything it's convincing you not to shy away from him, and with such an overpowering hold on you the very idea he doesn't exist is very hard to fathom. Blind acceptance, as you said.

I personally think the UK has a stronger support in catholism and christianity than America, it's been here since medieval times (no doubt before) and it's the norm, and no matter the school, being an atheist at a young age is considered very bizarre.
Most of my beliefs didn't come from personal experiences, but by my observations on seeing how people were treated for stepping outside of the wholesome christian image. What topped it off were also these pentecostal gatherings, gay reformation camps and just the mind melding effect some groups try to garner on young christians. It just started to become more absurd and reallly just turned me off religion, becoming agnostic, to a point where I couldn't see any point in religion and in believing the existance of an almighty one. But thats just me @_@

Underling

05-27-2008, 03:52 PM

desu

JesusRocks

05-27-2008, 03:55 PM

True that lol

I remember picking on them >.<

Nina

05-28-2008, 12:00 AM

In no way did I mean to imply that religious people are unintelligent and illogical, in my brief paragraph I meant to summarize my views on why I personally believe that theists and atheists are not as correct as one another. I understand that this topic is a touchy one. I'm not militant in the slightest bit, I believe that religion has instilled some good behavior in people, only I don't have it in me to believe in a Supreme Being, or anything else attributed to religion. My personal view is that if anyone stopped to think about it, it's easy to lose one's faith indefinitely. Some people, some intelligent, logical people, would prefer not to think of a world without God in it. So they don't question it or don't delve too deeply in it. Not all of course. Again, my personal beliefs, no offense guys. And no offense taken.

Nina

05-28-2008, 12:12 AM

Yeah, I kinda lumped 'God' and 'religion' together because I believe in neither. But you could believe in a Supreme Being and not necessarily the God that is depicted in the Bible. I think it's good to discuss this stuff because I think that everyone has that time in their life where the God question really bugs them. It used to depress the hell at of me, I went to a religious summer camp and was fed a lot of information, even considered becoming more religious. Then of course I went in the complete other direction. I guess it's good to think it through once. Bleh my bad if I'm ranting.

Feball3001

05-28-2008, 03:34 AM

Personally, as someone who was not brought up in a Christian environment, but instead came to faith around 2 and a half years ago... I can say that I never "police my thoughts"... or suppress "natural healthy urges" and in reality, you shouldn't have to...

I can't speak for those people brought up in a Christian home... I can imagine that it would be a lot harder for them to come to faith of their own choice because I know that with my life, there is a stark contrast between how I used to be and how I am now... and it's a really, really good difference... whereas if you are told constantly and having it rammed in like that especially if your parents or local church has very conservative views, you will either reject it, which isn't good... or blindly accept it, which is equally as bad.
I was bought up in a christian home and am still a christian now and have never felt the the need to police my thoughts or suppress any urgers either. But I think you are right about them coming to faith on there own. I know a lot of people that question if what they believe is because there parents believe it. I feel sometime that the people who come to God later in life have a refreshed view on there own life to people that where bought up in christian homes and have believed from a young age such as myself.

As for if God actually exists or not that is something that I can not prove or disprove. People have been trying to prove that God does not exist for a long time and if they have any hard facts that he does not it would have been revieled by now.

Underling

05-28-2008, 09:54 AM

desu

littlekuribohrulz20

05-28-2008, 07:09 PM

that's only because you can't see.highly improbable
for your side it is.As for ours, we see things in a different view.

JesusRocks

05-28-2008, 07:28 PM

Indeed LKR has a point, you may see God as highly improbable... however we see God has highly probable, indeed moreso... as we believe he actually exists, and not in the high probability of his existence...

I, for one, do not subscribe to Creationism... the Bible is not a science library, and never claims to be... as well as recording the History of a nation since ancient times, it is also a sociological library, going in depth about things such as human suffering, how people dealt with it, how God views it and even the very personality and nature of God. It touches on things such as community and family, what was wrong with the world, and what remains wrong with the world... Bottom line is... the Bible never focuses on the "how" of creation... that is best left, for the most part, to science... but it instead focuses on the "why" of creation...

Keeping the "Why?" question in mind instead of the "How?", look again at the Creation story in Genesis...

Therefore, in light of this, I can still look at the things of nature and say that, their compliexity, diversity and even the very existence of life on the earth itself... even the finely tuned balance of forces in the universe... I, personally take those things as a pointer to God, not just as a designer, but due to the complexity of all things, One who loves and sustains what He creates... He loves going into intricate details with what he creates... on both an interstellar and subatomic level.

And Science helps us to discover and share in the complexity of what God has made... evolution, atoms, microbes, diversity of animal life, mountains, weather systems... all dependent on one-another... and likewise all dependent on God... It's something I look at an go "WOW! That is AMAZING!"

Why leave us to discover it? Isn't there a certain wonder about discovering something for the first time... or being led to something which you didn't quite know was there? Like being led to a surprise of something amazingly complex and beautiful...

Then we ask "how?" and "why?" ... More discovery awaits us if we try to figure out the "how" using science... and an appreciation for the One who made it follows from the answer to the "why?"

This is my view... i don't expect people to largely agree with it... I'm just airing it, and, of course, I mean no force or offense ^_^

WillPhanto1

05-28-2008, 11:02 PM

Very well said, I couldn't have put it better myself.

Face

05-29-2008, 03:44 AM

Personally, I believe that arguing over the existence of God, or a Supreme Being, is pointless beyond use as a philosophical exercise; as it is not really possible to prove the existence of, or prove the non-existence of any such being. All supporting evidence for or against would always be open into interpretation and doubt. How are we to know for certain that the being we believe exists is truly THE SUPREME being, or how are we to know for certain that the supreme being isn't actively trying to avoid detection?

agrajagthetesty

05-29-2008, 12:08 PM

I was bought up in a christian home and am still a christian now and have never felt the the need to police my thoughts or suppress any urgers either
And yet, on the "Gay Marriage" thread you describe homosexuality as a product of the "devil's influence". Pretty strong words coming from someone who never feels the need to suppress urges.

(Before I get misinterpreted- I'm not claiming that you yourself have homosexual feelings and suppress them. I'm just saying that you certainly try to suppress the homosexual feelings of others.)

lukeh

05-29-2008, 03:38 PM

God exists. It may be hard to believe but he does. There is no loss either for believing in god anyways. You die, you go to heaven. Or you die and go to hell/nothing happens. Christianity and Jewish beleifes have been passed on for thousands and thousands of years. Many other religions were only around for a few hundred. Maybe two thousand at TOPS. I don't know much about other religions though. Nobody can prove gods existance. He didnt want it to just have life be a giant glossary. How boring would it be if we could just know EVERYTHING. We would have to even do anything. Has darkarcher come here yet? He knows a lot about this stuff.

lukeh

05-29-2008, 03:53 PM

or how are we to know for certain that the supreme being isn't actively trying to avoid detection?

Everyone makes God compared with Santa even when they don't realize. Santa is fake. Sorry, kids but its true. Oh, and you're adopted.

But God doesn't want for us to see him. He wants us to believe in him. If he would reveal himself, we would have no choice but to believe in him.

Also, God made us to worship him. We are MADE to worship. That is why we have so many religions. Some people never heard of God and said, "Who made us?" "Who made the earth?" "Hey, I think Zeus makes those lightning bolts!"

Another point: There are so many different retellings of the main bible stories. Take Noah's Ark for instance. That was retold into the Greek and Roman way that involves Zeus and others. Its evident that happened because of our oceans.

One last point: The tower of babylon or language: God gave us a language with Adam and Eve. They were born with language. It's impossible to make a language of your own from scratch when you don't have a communication form to begin with. Try speaking to someone without using motions and voice. (Hard isn't it?) The tower of Babylon made all the other languages that we speak today.

GOD IS REAL

Chidori

05-29-2008, 05:48 PM

God gave us a language with Adam and Eve.
So you believe that humans appeared out of thin air and evolution is merely a myth?

Someguy

05-29-2008, 05:53 PM

HAHAHAHA!!!

darkarcher

05-29-2008, 06:03 PM

So you believe that humans appeared out of thin air and evolution is merely a myth?
The common Christian belief is that God created man out of the dirt and gave him life. This kind of belief takes just as much faith as a strictly evolutionary standpoint, which is that humans evolved from bacteria that were suddenly present in a pool of ooze.

Now, don't get me wrong. I think that evolution exists, but not in the capacities that people claim that it does. I think that there is such a thing as adaptation and natural selection. The member of a species that has the most beneficial traits for a certain ecosystem will survive better and produce more offspring with those traits. However, I do not think that there is an "evolution tree" from which all animals come. There is room for species differentiation, but not very much further.It's impossible to make a language of your own from scratch when you don't have a communication form to begin with.
Human beings can create their own language. Yes, Christians believe that God inspired language, and that is true. However, it is man that develops and changes languages over time.

And lukeh...I have to say that many of your points are a little weak and should be thought on a bit more.

Anyway, I have to agree with Face. Debating the existence of Deity is not going to reach a conclusion, but can merely serve as a mental exercise.

agrajagthetesty

05-30-2008, 06:47 AM

There is room for species differentiation, but not very much further.
Horses, humans, lizards and birds all have basically the same bone structure in their legs/arms/wings. There may be more types of animal with the same sort of structure too, but those are the only examples I can remember right now.

Underling

05-30-2008, 08:41 AM

desu

DrSexstix

05-30-2008, 11:49 AM

lukeh

05-31-2008, 01:54 PM

I think that there is such a thing as adaptation and natural selection.
So do IThe existence of any Adam and Eve has been scientifically proven to be false.
No it has not.

I don't really see the point of posting here now, because I realize, we won't reach a conclusion. But I have some questions. Why make fun of christians? What is there to pick on for? I have never EVER been made fun of for being a christian EVER. Maybe its just different in the U.S....

I just recently read a book by a person named Steven Colbert (heard of him? hes on TV) He talks a lot about catholism (although im not catholic the points are the same) and he talks about all this stuff we talk about. I agree with him on mostly everything. The book is called "I am America, and you can, too!" Thats what I think its called.

lukeh

05-31-2008, 02:04 PM

1: At the first God made the heaven and the earth.
2: And the earth was waste and without form; and it was dark on the face of the deep: and the Spirit of God was moving on the face of the waters.
3: And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4: And God, looking on the light, saw that it was good: and God made a division between the light and the dark,
5: Naming the light, Day, and the dark, Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.
6: And God said, Let there be a solid arch stretching over the waters, parting the waters from the waters.
7: And God made the arch for a division between the waters which were under the arch and those which were over it: and it was so.
8: And God gave the arch the name of Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, the second day.
9: And God said, Let the waters under the heaven come together in one place, and let the dry land be seen: and it was so.
10: And God gave the dry land the name of Earth; and the waters together in their place were named Seas: and God saw that it was good.
11: And God said, Let grass come up on the earth, and plants producing seed, and fruit-trees giving fruit, in which is their seed, after their sort: and it was so.
12: And grass came up on the earth, and every plant producing seed of its sort, and every tree producing fruit, in which is its seed, of its sort: and God saw that it was good.
13: And there was evening and there was morning, the third day.
14: And God said, Let there be lights in the arch of heaven, for a division between the day and the night, and let them be for signs, and for marking the changes of the year, and for days and for years:
15: And let them be for lights in the arch of heaven to give light on the earth: and it was so.
16: And God made the two great lights: the greater light to be the ruler of the day, and the smaller light to be the ruler of the night: and he made the stars.
17: And God put them in the arch of heaven, to give light on the earth;
18: To have rule over the day and the night, and for a division between the light and the dark: and God saw that it was good.
19: And there was evening and there was morning, the fourth day.
20: And God said, Let the waters be full of living things, and let birds be in flight over the earth under the arch of heaven.
21: And God made great sea-beasts, and every sort of living and moving thing with which the waters were full, and every sort of winged bird: and God saw that it was good.
22: And God gave them his blessing, saying, Be fertile and have increase, making all the waters of the seas full, and let the birds be increased in the earth.
23: And there was evening and there was morning, the fifth day.
24: And God said, Let the earth give birth to all sorts of living things, cattle and all things moving on the earth, and beasts of the earth after their sort: and it was so.
25: And God made the beast of the earth after its sort, and the cattle after their sort, and everything moving on the face of the earth after its sort: and God saw that it was good.
26: And God said, Let us make man in our image, like us: and let him have rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over the cattle and over all the earth and over every living thing which goes flat on the earth.
27: And God made man in his image, in the image of God he made him: male and female he made them.
28: And God gave them his blessing and said to them, Be fertile and have increase, and make the earth full and be masters of it; be rulers over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing moving on the earth.
29: And God said, See, I have given you every plant producing seed, on the face of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit producing seed: they will be for your food:
30: And to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the air and every living thing moving on the face of the earth I have given every green plant for food: and it was so.
31: And God saw everything which he had made and it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day

Here is what the bible says for the creation of the universe for anyone.

http://www.gospelway.com/creation/evolution_consequences.php

EDIT: This says that the bible doesn't neccesarally say that evolution CAN'T exist. Both evolution AND creation could have happened.

This is sounding more like a court trial...

lukeh

05-31-2008, 02:35 PM

Here are some key points I would like to point out (oh and sorry for having all these posts. I don't want just one giant one to keep editing on):Unlike the animals, man was created in the image or likeness of God. As a result, God gave men dominion over the animals. Note that we are not equal with animals, nor are we just advanced animals. We have dominion over the animals, even as we do over the rest of the earth.What is involved in the "image of God"? It appears that man is similar to God (though not on His level) and unlike animals in the following ways:

1. Man has rational intelligence. He has ability to reason, invent, communicate, etc., in ways far beyond animals. His ability in this regard allows him to communicate with God and understand God's purpose for man's existence.
2. Man has a will, and a power to choose. He is a free moral agent. He is able to choose between alternatives and determine which course he will pursue. He is therefore accountable before God to make the choices and pursue the goals that God instructs him to.
3. Man has emotions. He can experience joy, love, anger, hatred, sorrow, etc. The Bible also attributes such feelings to God.
4. Man has a conscience. He is able, not only to distinguish right from wrong, but also to have an inherent sense of guilt when he has done wrong and a sense of approval when he has done right.
5. Man has a spirit nature, which has the opportunity to be with God in eternity. [Cf. John 4:24 to Ecc. 3:21; 12:7; etc.]
The image of God may involve more than this, but it surely includes all this. In all these ways men are like God, but unlike animals.
Other Scriptures confirm that man is in the image of God.
Here are those other verses:Psalm 8:4-8 - God placed man over all creation, including all animals (cf. Heb. 2:6-8).

1 Corinthians 11:7 - Man is the image and glory of God.

James 3:9,10 - Men should not curse other men, because they are made in the likeness of God. But if man is not really in God's image, but just an advanced animal, would it be all right to curse them? Could it be that one reason why we today hear so much cursing and profanity is that people no longer respect other people as being in God's image? [Gen. 9:6]

These verses show that Genesis 1 is not to be taken as myth. The Bible teaching about the nature of man is treated as historical truth throughout the Bible.

Here is another major contradiction between the Bible and evolution. As Acts 17:24-29 shows, we must partake of the nature of that from which we are the offspring. If we evolved from the animals, we are just animals. But if God created us, then we are the offspring of God and we partake of characteristics in common with God. We are distinct from the animals and have dominion over them.
And finally the main points of the article:1. Evolution undermines faith in God and encourages unbelief.

2. It denies the truth of hundreds of passages throughout the Bible and leads to rejection of the Bible as our standard of right and wrong.

3. It encourages denial of other miracles including the virgin birth and the resurrection.

4. It denies man is in the image of God and views us as mere animals.

5. It denies the Divine origin and authority for marriage.

6. It destroys our means for recognizing false teachers.

7. It denies the fall of man and the origin of sin and death.

8. It implies that life is without meaning or purpose.

9. It implies that man is wholly material without eternal rewards.

10. It leaves us with no basis for determining eternal rewards.

11. It implies there is no means and no reason for becoming a child of God.

12. It implies Jesus was just a fallible human or a legend.

13. It undermines the relationship between Jesus and His church.

14. It destroys the concept of absolute moral standards and promotes human wisdom and lack of restraint.

15. It undermines the need for salvation through Jesus.

Any attempt to compromise with evolution leads inevitably to a rejection of Bible teaching.
Yet this proves nothing but what the title says...

Chidori

05-31-2008, 04:39 PM

I think god is a pretty cool guy, eh creates worlds and doesn't afraid of anything.

lunchbox

05-31-2008, 08:20 PM

yeah he's a really nice guy once you get to know him

Underling

06-01-2008, 07:46 AM

desu

lukeh

06-01-2008, 08:32 AM

It hasn't been PROVEN or anything. Just suggested with facts not strong enough to win the arguement.

agrajagthetesty

06-01-2008, 08:39 AM

It hasn't been PROVEN or anything. Just suggested with facts not strong enough to win the arguement.
Uh oh, I sense trouble here... I hope you understand that even the most widely accepted scientific theories are not considered to have been proven. In science, it's not possible to prove a theory, and theories tend to become generally accepted once several people have tried and failed to disprove it.

Underling

06-01-2008, 09:33 AM

desu

agrajagthetesty

06-01-2008, 10:20 AM

Is it? How can you definitively prove a theory?

I heard once that scientists had traced humanity back to one woman and one man, but the woman lived thousands of years before the man. I think I need to do some research on this.

spencer43

06-01-2008, 10:31 AM

Ohk if we are going to talk about the existence of a higher being then we need proof.

By every ones logic here if you can prove something its real.

God exists. = Bible. - thats proof then and there, it does not matter what level of proof it is, its still proof. It was not done in our time line, nor was it done in the time lines of any of our living relatives. It has been translated over the years and has been around for over 2 000. So to me and every one here that is sufficient evidence to say that there is a higher being.

So for God we have bible.

Now show me some proof that there is no God. Show me some where there is evidence to say he does not exist.

Dont try and talk about some crap to turn this around or discredit the bible. Because society accepts the bible. If you will contribute to the conversation about the existence of God thru logic defined by proof = reality then show me proof.

If you can not come up with it then by the logic that proof = reality then there is a God and this conversation is ... over.

@ Underling ... is some religions "adam and eve" mean man and woman. So it was not necessarily one man and woman. Its how you take the bible.

Dont get me wrong I am all for evolution since its been proven in facts.

Now I want to see some evidence that there was a meteor that killed all life and not the "flood" because when I talk to people about it, they generally go there was no meteor it was all the flood. Altho I have proof in its self, but I wouldnt be contributing much if I brought that here my self.

Lets go thru the major events in the bible and see if science vs religion and what comes out the victor huh?

agrajagthetesty

06-01-2008, 10:50 AM

God exists. = Bible. - thats proof then and there
Do you actually have any idea what proof is? The Bible provides no proof whatsoever of the existence of God. To accept the Bible as proof you first have to believe that everything it says is true. It's no proof at all.

Underling

06-01-2008, 10:54 AM

desu

killshot

06-01-2008, 11:27 AM

I just recently read a book by a person named Steven Colbert...
Are you aware that Steven Colbert is a satirist? He pretends to strongly agree with a possition in order to humorously point out the position's flaws. I have not read the book, but I am quite certain Mr. Cobert was poking fun at religion and not praising it. [The bible] has been translated over the years and has been around for over 2 000. So to me and every one here that is sufficient evidence to say that there is a higher being.

This is a logical fallacy. Just because an opinion is widely accepted, its popularity does not make said opinion any more valid. The bible cannot be used to prove things that are talked about in the bible. Now show me some proof that there is no God.
The burden of proof rests with those making the claim. Also, it is impossible to prove a negative.

WillPhanto1

06-01-2008, 11:34 AM

Something you have to remember about Genesis, it wasn't written at the time of the Creation, nor was it written by one of Adam and Eve's children. It was Written by Moses with the rest of the Torah (the first five books of the Bible) thousands of years later. Most likely God showed Creating the world in a dream or vision. Or Course, Moses, and the ancient Hebrews couldn't possible begin to understand an scientific how of the Creation. Nor was it relevant to them, what was relevant was the why of the Creation. There's no real no doubt in my mind that the early part of Genesis is meant to be enigmatic or metaphoric (up to the time it starts telling of Abraham). The Bible is about Human Spirituality, the why we are here, and our relationship with God. Not the how we're here. Genesis, as well as the rest of the Bible, is suppose to teach us lessons that'll help us through life.

Anyway, most who believe in God (who are not just paying lip service), can feel the presence of God in their Spiritual lives, and often people in times of trail who call upon God to help them often feel Him.
And that's where this debate becomes a stalemate. Those who open their hearts and minds to God, or Spirituality in general, will say there is a God or another world out there, Based on their own experiences. While atheists who believe only in the physical world, naturally have the minds and hearts closed to all things Spiritual, and will of course feel nothing from God. Not that He doesn�t love them, he still loves all his Children. So based on their experiences there is nothing out there.

JesusRocks

06-01-2008, 05:12 PM

¬_¬ *sigh* this has gotten insanely complex... more complex than it need be...

@Underling: Your reasoning is logical, but there is another way around it. Your saying that because the eye is so complex and unlikely, then God is a million times more unlikely... however, that's not the full deal. Taking the eye for example, personally I think its complexity means it is unlikely to have originated without a creator ... not the mere fact that it is unlikely in the first place, that's not the key point... but that it is unlikely to have arisen without a creator... which therefore boosts the likelihood of a Creator, rather than diminishes it... There is not just one stream of logic flowing from that statement...

Remember that you and I are looking at this from opposite viewpoints, both of us are saying "yes, it's unlikely, but that's how it happened" ... i.e. You: "It happened by chance anyway, so, because it is unlikely, that means that a creator is more unlikely"
Me: "There is a creator who is intimately involved in the world, so, because it (the eye) is unlikely to have arisen without a creator, that means that a creator is more likely"
_____________________________________

Also, I will stress this every time I post here... the Creation Story in Genesis is not focused on the how of Creation. It is more focused on the why.

Underling

06-01-2008, 05:43 PM

desu

JesusRocks

06-01-2008, 06:00 PM

Very well... but the question of time is very tricky, considering it's something we are subject to, and something which God is not subject to... after all, time is a dimension present in the universe. Who's to say that time also has to be present outside the universe. So it goes a little deeper than just that He has "always been there" ...

(This considering the amount of supposed dimensions that scientist have discovered - last count i know of was something like 20 or 21, feel free to correct me)

Underling

06-01-2008, 06:18 PM

desu

agrajagthetesty

06-01-2008, 06:20 PM

It happened by chance anyway
The theory of evolution does not state that life developed by chance.

Underling

06-01-2008, 06:27 PM

desu

JesusRocks

06-01-2008, 06:28 PM

well spotted lol...

Buuuut, I'm gonna leave it that way, can't be bothered to change it...

JesusRocks

06-01-2008, 06:30 PM

I understand.

agrajagthetesty

06-01-2008, 06:32 PM

Just as long as that's understood. <img src='/images/emoticons/smiley1.png'>

lukeh

06-01-2008, 07:52 PM

We should lock this as many others have suggested. There is no clear outcome. No one can prove the other side wrong.

JesusRocks

06-01-2008, 07:53 PM

Normally breaks out into flaming... the last thread about this wasn't locked though... but it was kept under tight surveillance...

MrsSallyBakura

06-01-2008, 08:05 PM

I don't believe the creation story in the Bible is an exact literal interpretation, and neither do many other Christians. Most go by the interpretation that says, "God didn't say that 24 hours made one day, and God lives outside of time and outside our natural world, so a day could mean a thousand years, therefore being able to fit evolution into the mix." I've heard someone else say that the whole "day" thing came with a series of dreams that Moses had, one "day" representing one dream.

Also, I don't know a whole lot about the theory of evolution, but from what little I may (or may not) know is that as the Earth developed, the creatures became more and more complex. Sea creatures came before land creatures and they came before humans. First off, God didn't even make any animals until the 5th day, and He made the sea creatures and birds first.
Gen 1:20-23 "Then God said, "Let the water teem with an abundance of living creatures, and on the earth let birds fly beneath the dome of the sky." And so it happened: God created the great sea monsters and all kinds of swimming creatures with which the water teems, and all kinds of winged birds. God saw how good it was, and God blessed them, saying, "Be fertile, multiply, and fill the water of the seas; and let the birds multiply on the earth." Evening came, and morning followed--the fifth day."

Then the following verses say that on the 6th day he made the wild land animals, and then he made the humans.

Even if this isn't an EXACT parallel to the theory of evolution, both ideas coexist better than people give credit for.

killshot

06-02-2008, 01:14 AM

God didn't say that 24 hours made one day, and God lives outside of time and outside our natural world, so a day could mean a thousand years, therefore being able to fit evolution into the mix
This seems like a shallow attempt to keep the God theory alive. The theory of evolution comes along and debunks the seven day creation myth and God retreats farther back into the shadows of obscurity. I believe it is only a matter of time until science can adequately explain the origin of life. When that day comes it will no longer be necessary for thiests to dance around logic just to try to add credibility to an old superstition.

agrajagthetesty

06-02-2008, 03:53 AM

It would be a shame to lock this thread. What's wrong with a bit of healthy debate? Just because we can't reach a conclusion doesn't mean it's not a good exercise, and as long as we're all being civil and rational I don't see a problem here.This seems like a shallow attempt to keep the God theory alive. The theory of evolution comes along and debunks the seven day creation myth and God retreats farther back into the shadows of obscurity. I believe it is only a matter of time until science can adequately explain the origin of life. When that day comes it will no longer be necessary for thiests to dance around logic just to try to add credibility to an old superstition.
Very well put. I entirely agree.

darkarcher

06-02-2008, 07:37 AM

The theory of evolution comes along and debunks the seven day creation myth and God retreats farther back into the shadows of obscurity.
However, a theory cannot "debunk" anything because it has not been proven true. It is still perfectly possible that there was a literal seven day creation cycle or an evolutionary creation cycle. The truth is that no one knows exactly how life began scientifically, since no human was there to observe it.

agrajagthetesty

06-02-2008, 08:12 AM

It is still perfectly possible that there was a literal seven day creation cycle
Hardly. The stages of evolution can be observed in the fossil record and carbon-dated to a certain degree of accuracy, and there are also some modern recorded examples of natural selection at work. The biggest question left is how the first living bacteria arose, and the seven-day creation theory can hardly be used to explain that, as it states that the first life was in the form of whole plants and vegetation.

darkarcher

06-02-2008, 12:56 PM

The stages of evolution can be observed in the fossil record and carbon-dated to a certain degree of accuracy, and there are also some modern recorded examples of natural selection at work.
1. The fossil record is inconsistent as a whole. There is not evolutionary explanation for polystrata fossils, and at no point on earth is every single strata present on top of each other. Also, there's a glaring lack of "missing link" species.
2. Natural selection does not necessarily imply evolution. While there is indeed alteration and selection within a species, there has never been an observable division from one species into a completely new one.
3. Just because there are large amounts of species does not mean they all evolved like that, and it does not disprove a seven day creation because it's still possible that God created so many species in that way.

Underling

06-02-2008, 01:38 PM

desu

agrajagthetesty

06-02-2008, 02:19 PM

The problem with this sort of argument is that religious people immediately leap on the (usually very small) flaws in the scientific theory. There being gaps in the record is hardly surprising given the rarity of the sort of conditions required for fossilisation. We're lucky to have as complete a record as we do. The evidence discovered is more than enough to back up the theory. Even if it wasn't, the lack of conclusive evidence for evolution would not automatically mean that the seven-day theory was correct. Also, as Underling said, new evidence is being found all the time.Just because there are large amounts of species does not mean they all evolved like that, and it does not disprove a seven day creation because it's still possible that God created so many species in that way.
So you're saying that some species evolved and others were created within the seven day period? Now that's what I call hedging your bets.

darkarcher

06-02-2008, 05:11 PM

So you're saying that some species evolved and others were created within the seven day period? Now that's what I call hedging your bets.
Not quite what I meant. I meant that you were pointing to the vast amount of similar creatures to support evolution, and I was countering that it is completely possible that they were created in that way.the lack of conclusive evidence for evolution would not automatically mean that the seven-day theory was correct
I never said this. I merely meant that creation is plausible since we can't technically prove macro-evolution.

WillPhanto1

06-02-2008, 05:39 PM

You have to remember who God's audience was when he give the Oral Torah. Old people today can hardly comprehend how computers, DVDs, and the internet works. Do you think the ancient Hebrews could even begin to grasp how the universe and life was made? I�m not saying God told a fictional version of how he made life, just a version they could understand.
Also, him actually making the universe and life is only one chapter long while the rest of the Creation story is three chapters. The how He made the Earth wasn�t really the subject of the story, it was the people, Adam and Eve, the first Man and Woman (or first modern humans).
You have to remember the Bible is about people, and their relationship with God.

Personally, I�m tired of hearing people use evolution has a "debunker" to God, since it really doesn't. The Bible was always focused on people and their relationship with God, than how God made things. Of course, most of the holy rollers will tell you different. But they don't represent the rest of Christianity.

MrsSallyBakura

06-02-2008, 05:56 PM

You have to remember who God's audience was when he give the Oral Torah. Old people today can hardly comprehend how computers, DVDs, and the internet works. Do you think the ancient Hebrews could even begin to grasp how the universe and life was made? I�m not saying God told a fictional version of how he made life, just a version they could understand.
This.
Thank you. Something like that was sizzling in the back of my mind while reading the other posts but it didn't quite come together like this. The people in the Bible just make me facepalm sometimes...
Personally, I�m tired of hearing people use evolution has a "debunker" to God, since it really doesn't.
I'm tired of it too. I'm also tired of uber-Christians denying science just because it doesn't follow exactly what the Bible says. Like you said, we humans have a better understanding of the natural world than we did when everything first started.

agrajagthetesty

06-03-2008, 11:23 AM

I meant that you were pointing to the vast amount of similar creatures to support evolution, and I was countering that it is completely possible that they were created in that way.
But then God would have created species that over time changed into completely different species or simply went extinct naturally. Sounds like a waste of God's time to me.I never said this.
You certainly implied it. Someone brought up evolution as evidence against creation, and you immediately mentioned all the flaws in the theory of evolution and concluded by saying that a seven-day creation is still plausible. You didn't give any reasons why you automatically reverted to the "creation" theory as an alternative.I�m not saying God told a fictional version of how he made life, just a version they could understand.
In other words, a simplified version. But this would still include the bare bones of the story, and the bare bones say that God created life. I don't see how that can sit comfortably with the theory of evolution, no matter which way you slice it.You have to remember the Bible is about people, and their relationship with God.
True. But it also mentions how the universe was made. This reminds me of something my father once told me: that natural selection and evolution show how species develop over time, effectively disproving the theory that they were created from scratch, but that technically God still exists, because he was the one that caused the big bang. But the thing is, this isn't what the Bible says. I don't understand how people can call themselves Christians while effectively denying part of the Christian religion: the creation story.I'm also tired of uber-Christians denying science just because it doesn't follow exactly what the Bible says.
Oh good. Something we agree on.

WillPhanto1

06-03-2008, 04:57 PM

I don't understand how people can call themselves Christians while effectively denying part of the Christian religion: the creation story.
I'm not denying the creation story. I'm pointing out that there's no way people back then could understand that level of science, and that the actual part concerning Him making the Earth is short, and that Adam and Eve were the real subjects of the story, not Him making everything. I don't see how that can sit comfortably with the theory of evolution, no matter which way you slice it. And why couldn't God made it that animals can adapt? Just because it's not mentioned doesn't mean God couldn't have done it. Yet again, the story was about the beginning of mankind, about people, not how God made things. It's matter of relevance.

agrajagthetesty

06-03-2008, 05:17 PM

I'm not denying the creation story. I'm pointing out that there's no way people back then could understand that level of science
I'm a bit confused over what you're actually trying to say here... Do you mean that God created animals that then evolved, and explained this to the people, but that they wrote that he just created all the animals as they are?And why couldn't God made it that animals can adapt?
For the reasons I've already said: God would have created species that over time changed into completely different species or simply went extinct naturally. Sounds like a waste of God's time to me.It's matter of relevance.
What difference does relevance make? I thought this was a holy book we're talking about. Surely everything that it mentions has to be important, seeing as it's the word of God and everything. Even if the beginning of the world is somehow irrelevant, why would that make a difference in this debate?

JesusRocks

06-03-2008, 05:39 PM

Just to chip in here... you're making it sound like creating the world would have been an unwanted chore for God... anything that is worth doing is worth taking time over... God didn't create the world because he "had" to... he created it becuase he wanted to, because he loves creating... So, whether it was literally 6 days, 4.5 billion years, or 15 billion years... it certainly would not have been a waste of God's time...

Stressed yet again: Genesis pulls its focus, not on how the universe was made, but on why. The "how" of Creation is not gone into in very much detail, even if God did create everything in 6 days... there's... like... a couple of sentences on each stage... Based on your logic in looking at Genesis, someone who says "The sun only rises and sets because God says, 'Do that again.'" literally thinks that the earth is stationary and that it is the sun that moves up and down. But no, that person does not literally think that, rather they are conveying a deeper truth, that whatever happens in the universe, God alone is Sovereign.

Just like looking at Genesis, God spoke the words of creation... now He need only to have spoken, but whether everything happened literally with that little detail or not is not the focus of Genesis, but rather on God's overreaching sovereignty, and the purpose of creation.

agrajagthetesty

06-03-2008, 05:49 PM

God didn't create the world because he "had" to... he created it becuase he wanted to, because he loves creating... So, whether it was literally 6 days, 4.5 billion years, or 15 billion years... it certainly would not have been a waste of God's time...
Perhaps "a waste of time" was the wrong phrase. What I meant was that creating species which he knew would die out (and die out before his main concern, humans, even arrived on the scene) would be ultimately pointless. I think that seems a fair comment, especially considering everyone is placing the focus on the "relevance" and "purpose" of the creation.Based on your logic in looking at Genesis, someone who says "The sun only rises and sets because God says, 'Do that again.'" literally thinks that the earth is stationary and that it is the sun that moves up and down.
I don't know where you got that from. I haven't said anything even remotely similar to that. I don't think I've even implied that.Genesis pulls its focus, not on how the universe was made, but on why.
Yes, ok. But we're discussing evolution/creationism here, which does place its focus on the how.

JesusRocks

06-03-2008, 06:09 PM

Okay, I'll explain a little more... I was using "you" in general terms because i got lazy with typing... But still, there seems to be a common string of logic amongst both creationists and evolutionists which runs along the lines of "Genesis says this, therefore it must carry a completely literal meaning, which is incompatible with evolution, which means that is true/false" ...

I chose the phrase in my last post because it is a phrase I have heard a few times, and I felt it was a perfect parallel to the kind of language used in Genesis to tell the creation story... and in applying the above logic the following results:

"The person said 'the Sun only rises and sets because God says 'Do that again.", he/she didn't say anything about God's sovereignty, therefore the statement must carry a literal meaning, which is incompatible with the fact that the Earth revolves around the Sun, therefore this statement is false." And further, that to say that the meaning is not literal but symbolic is just a giant cop-out.

This is the most common logic I have come across in these types of debate... and it's really not a good way to look at things... The wordage in Genesis about the creation story does not seem to me like it holds literal meaning. I'm not a creationist... at this time I am sitting on the fence about it, because I don't think that the "how" can be found in Genesis... and I also know that science can get things wrong... so I'm just here to try to act as a mediator...

________________________________________________
Also: Creationism finds its roots in believing that the Creation Story in Genesis carries a literal meaning. I am trying to say that the Creation Story at the beginning of Genesis does not display God's nonexistence (due to it's literal-form incompatibility with evolutionism), and I am giving a reason why, i.e. that the Creation Story in Genesis is not meant to tell us how God created the world, but instead that he [i]did and why he did it...

Henriksson

06-04-2008, 07:50 AM

The Argument of "Prove it" shouldn't really be an effective argument against somebody. It's like saying "Your Mother" is a way to counter an insult. As for my proof of how God exist is Christians themselves. God is an idea of love and acceptance and most Christians show this by Church, organizations that donate food and clothing to the homeless under a Christian name, and showing good ideals to the world. Another thing I can prove God exist is how it has changed my Moms life, every time she goes to church she is so happy when ever she talks with God and walks with God. Even if God doesn't exist, the idea of God does and that is enough for me.
Insane Person: There is a tea cup orbiting around the sun.
Sceptic: Prove it.
Insane Person: Don't you momma me, foo'!

Sane Person: There is a tea cup orbiting around the sun.
Sceptic: Prove it.
Sane Person: [either provides proof or acknowledges that there is no proof.]

Insane Person: God exists.
Sceptic: Prove it.
Insane Person: Don't you momma me, foo'!

Sane Person: God exists.
Sceptic: Prove it.
Sane Person: [either provides proof or acknowledges that there is no proof.]

In short, any sane person needs actual evidence if they are to be believed in the spiritual sense.

agrajagthetesty

06-04-2008, 12:42 PM

Ok, so in short you mean that Genesis cannot be taken entirely literally but requires interpretation. Again, the problem is that people interpret it in entirely different ways. The creationist "every-word-is-literally-true" attitude is one interpretation. Yours is another. How can anyone independently decide what is the right interpretation?I'm not a creationist... at this time I am sitting on the fence about it, because I don't think that the "how" can be found in Genesis... and I also know that science can get things wrong... so I'm just here to try to act as a mediator.
This seems fair enough to the extent that Genesis is indeed very vague when it comes to detail, and science can indeed be wrong. But if the evolution theory is proven wrong in years to come, scientists will continue searching for the truth, test out new theories and gather evidence to help them decide which is the most likely explanation. The same can't really be said of Genesis. And to repeat myself again: Genesis may not be about the how, but it at least pays homage to the how by describing the stages of the creation and how it progressed. I think we need to bear that in mind.

Oh, and I think it might be an idea for us all to do our own research into both theories, or at least read papers on them. Gathering information might help us come to a conclusion. I don't believe we have to be stuck on the fence forever. We can always become more informed. For example, this year I aim to read the Qu'ran and the New Testament as well as the rest of Origin of Species. (I've already read the Old Testament.)

lukeh

06-04-2008, 01:51 PM

I am just leaving this topic. It doesn't matter if it's locked or not. I can just leave now and lock it away in the back of my head....

Clarification: I WILL leave now and lock it away in the back of my head.

PM me to reply because I won't be here to answer....

EDIT: One last question: Everyone knows that the people long ago lived a lot longer than us right? If we were evolving during that time, why were we decreasing our life span? Wouldn't we evolve to INCREASE?

Henriksson

06-05-2008, 05:01 AM

EDIT: One last question: Everyone knows that the people long ago lived a lot longer than us right? If we were evolving during that time, why were we decreasing our life span? Wouldn't we evolve to INCREASE?
No, people didn't live a lot longer in the past. The average life span was a LOT lower back in the old days. <img src='/images/emoticons/smiley5.png'>

Spoofs3

06-05-2008, 08:51 AM

Also humans arnt evolving.
Certain aspects of us have like our skin colour but otherwise we havent evolved at all.

Also you believe what you believe, Out of my 16 years alive i didnt really like the religion i was born into.
I tried many different religions but none of them gave me the proper faith.
I believe in God but out of all the religions i have tried all of them are absolutelly insane.
Many of their views are very wrong i feel.
And alot of the religions i have tried are not in contact with the people.

Take cristianity for example.
They have made many rules which i believe make no sense.
I shall name some of them,

1. Not allowing female priests, I believe if this religion should carry on it should get rid of its sexist way and change to allow female priests, it has already been proven that a female can do any job a male can so therefore why not allow it?

2. Not allowing contraception, they believe sex is for procreation and that only, In this day and age they shouldnt see it as that, People are going to have sex for pleasure only.
But that isnt really what i care about, I care that it has allowed condoms for people with AIDS.
If sex was for procreation only the pope wouldnt have issued Blessed condoms (he wants the condoms to be blessed for some reason :P) and he would just say to say away from sex if you have AIDS.

JesusRocks

06-05-2008, 08:52 AM

1. not... allowing... lolwut?
2. only... procreation... LOLWUT?

You're thinking mainly Roman Catholic... there are female pastors, and God gave us the ability to enjoy sex, and the blessing of no mating season... it is not just for procreation... it is a gift to be enjoyed responsibly. Yes, Christians do say that responsible sex is within marriage... which is true, although the marriage often depends on how seriously each side takes the vows they make to each other...

WillPhanto1

06-05-2008, 12:45 PM

This seems fair enough to the extent that Genesis is indeed very vague when it comes to detail, and science can indeed be wrong. Actually, I (and I think JesusRocks) was trying to point out that Genesis is indeed very vague when it comes to detail, and that science can indeed be right. Other than extreme Christians, most Christians see science as explaining how God made everything. In short, any sane person needs actual evidence if they are to be believed in the spiritual sense
Physical evidence is rare and often is VERY dangerous to one's well-being.

@Spoofs3: Yeah, that's Roman Catholic. Most Protestant Denominations have female Ministers. My Church had an Assistant Pastor that was Female. And I heard that the Pastor at another Church across town was a woman.

agrajagthetesty

06-05-2008, 02:08 PM

Actually, I (and I think JesusRocks) was trying to point out that Genesis is indeed very vague when it comes to detail, and that science can indeed be right.
Yes, I know. That's what I was trying to say: we all three agree that Genesis is vague, and that science is not infallible.Physical evidence is rare and often is VERY dangerous to one's well-being.
How can evidence be dangerous? Do you mean evidence of a certain thing? I can't imagine any situation where this would be the case...

inamerica55585

06-05-2008, 04:01 PM

Just out of curiosity, can anyone disprove the following claims?

-Santa Claus exists.
-The invisible pink unicorn created the universe.
-There is an invisible, massless teacup orbiting the Sun. (It can orbit the sun because it doesn't follow laws of physics)
-The ghost of Elvis haunts my house.
-My hand is actually a bug with six horns.
-Hitler decided to make the greatest cake in the world instead of becoming Fuhrer 1 octillion years ago.
-God exists.
I thought I'd take a second to prove or disprove these statements
- santa claus exists. false. we have been to the north pole, and we have seen no house with a fat guy that lives in it.
-The invisible pink unicorn created the universe. false. if it's pink then its not invisible, thus disproving your statement and denying its existence
-There is an invisible, massless teacup orbiting the Sun. (It can orbit the sun because it doesn't follow laws of physics)
False. if it's massless then it ceaces to occupy space, therefore becoming nonexistent.
-The ghost of Elvis haunts my house.
I've never been to your house. therefore, I cannot prove if this is true or false. allow me to take time to perform an ample investigation of your house and I can come up with an answer. I hypothesise no.
-My hand is actually a bug with six horns.
again, I've never seen your hand. therefore, I can't prove if this is true or false. if a doctor could run tests on your hand and determine whether or not it actually is a bug with six horns, I could come up with an answer.
-Hitler decided to make the greatest cake in the world instead of becoming Fuhrer 1 octillion years ago.
False. the universe isn't 1 octillion years old. if you are talking about another universe where someone named adolf hitler decided to make the greatest cake in the world, you may or may not be right.
-God exists.
The only people who truly understand have the answer to this question are the dead. and until we can communicate with them, we are not going to have a real answer.
to summate this post, believe what you want, just keep it the hell to yourself. that way the rest of us can get a bit of crumpet (or whatever it is the world does in its spare time)

Henriksson

06-05-2008, 04:41 PM

- santa claus exists. false. we have been to the north pole, and we have seen no house with a fat guy that lives in it.
Magic.-The invisible pink unicorn created the universe. false. if it's pink then its not invisible, thus disproving your statement and denying its existence
Magic.-There is an invisible, massless teacup orbiting the Sun. (It can orbit the sun because it doesn't follow laws of physics)
Magic.

Henriksson

06-05-2008, 04:45 PM

Also humans arnt evolving.
You yankin' my chain, bro?

Read this link. (http://www.becominghuman.org/)

And this. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution)

As well as this. (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/tryit/evolution/)

If you don't believe me after reading all these links, you are in denial.

WillPhanto1

06-05-2008, 06:55 PM

How can evidence be dangerous? Do you mean evidence of a certain thing? I can't imagine any situation where this would be the case...
Sorry, I meant Physical Spiritual evidence, it would take a great deal of spiritual energy to leave an imprint. Often positive energies or spirits leave little to no physical evidence, and usually only a feeling about the object, area, etc. However, negative energies, and malevolent, and/or demonic spirits are more "common" to leave physical evidence. For spiritual and mental safety, you don't want to mess with anything that's demonic.
In any case, only objects that could be used as evidence for the existence of God would be holy relics and artifacts such as The Ark of the Covenant. However, those thing are either kept hidden, have been destroyed, or naturally decayed long ago.

MrsSallyBakura

06-06-2008, 12:38 AM

1. Not allowing female priests, I believe if this religion should carry on it should get rid of its sexist way and change to allow female priests, it has already been proven that a female can do any job a male can so therefore why not allow it?

2. Not allowing contraception, they believe sex is for procreation and that only, In this day and age they shouldnt see it as that, People are going to have sex for pleasure only.
But that isnt really what i care about, I care that it has allowed condoms for people with AIDS.
If sex was for procreation only the pope wouldnt have issued Blessed condoms (he wants the condoms to be blessed for some reason :P) and he would just say to say away from sex if you have AIDS.
You are thinking purely Roman Catholicism, but being Catholic myself I'm going to defend my religion.

1. I don't think not allowing female priests is sexist.
"The fact that individual theologians may disagree with the grounds the Church uses to explain the male-only clergy is another issue altogether. Church arguments are based on the historical events of the Church, the apostolic teachings, a Sacred Tradition which has never acknowledged a valid female ordination, the "maleness" of Christ, and scriptural references from both testaments." http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1996/9601fea3.asp
It has nothing to do with the fact that women are below men or they're stupid or they can't lead a group of people in a church. It's based solely on tradition and how the Catholic church literally doesn't change a thing unless it's necessary.
Protestant denominations can have female pastors because they don't have quite the same calling Catholic priests have. They have similar missions, but it's a bit different. Can't really explain right now, maybe one of the Protestants can. :/

2.
they believe sex is for procreation and that only
False. Catholics believe, as JR said, that sex is for procreation AND pleasure. But it needs both and that's why contraception isn't accepted in the church; you can't have one without the other.
In this day and age they shouldnt see it as that, People are going to have sex for pleasure only.
Why shouldn't we? And why should we take having kids out of the picture? The Church isn't going to do things a certain way just because the rest of the world is. The Church calls its people to live in the world but not be a part of it. Allowing contraception for the very reason you just mentioned would be encouraging its members to be more of a part of the world.

You know, I know these rules all seem very silly, but they're some of the last things I think about when I go to church. In retrospect, they're not that big of a deal. I have no desire to be a priest and the rhythm method/natural family planning works incredibly well if you do it right (and that came from my global-warming paranoid Biology professor last semester who earlier ranted on how you should use condoms so you don't get STDs).

My point is that it's all about tradition and the belief that even though the world is always changing, God is unchanging. It's OK to modernize so that we're not stuck in the 12th century and to change whatever may be corrupt in the church, but not allowing women priests isn't sexist or corrupt, it's just complete tradition. Same with contraception. And again, sex is for BOTH procreation AND pleasure. And for marriage only. =D
the pope wouldnt have issued Blessed condoms (he wants the condoms to be blessed for some reason :P)
LOL I've never heard this. Link please?

Chrestomanci

06-06-2008, 02:08 AM

lol Invisible Pink Unicorn
The Invisible Pink Unicorn is a being of great spiritual power. We know this because she is capable of being invisible and pink at the same time. Like all religions, the Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorn is based upon both logic and faith. We have faith that she is pink; we logically know that she is invisible because we can't see her.

She is proven false because unicorns would be pink if they reflected pink electromagnetic radiation (i.e., light). However, in order to be invisible, the unicorns would reflect no electromagnetic radiation.

The Invisible Pink Unicorn is a satiric parody of theistic beliefs, self contradictory to point out the irrationality of religion. We have faith that God is there, even though there is no physical proof of his existence. This is a problem when "faith" is equivalent to the Latin assensus. Faith in this case, and as understood today, as belief that a claim or statement is true. It is now understood as what you need when belief and knowledge conflict, which leads to a literal-factual reading of the Bible. This happens when you prioritize "logos" (Logic) and dismiss "mythos" (Myth) as false, and this is where conflicts arise between religion and the secular world. To finally relate it to this thread, Christians have defended the literal factuality of Biblical stories, engaged in a "war" with science like Genesis vs Evolution, etc. The reason for this is that they identified truth with factuality; if the stories aren't factual, they aren't true. If they aren't true, then the Bible isn't true. What is at stake is their view on God itself. However, faith was never meant to be that way. Although faith as "assensus" is needed in some cases, (you can't love a god that you don't believe exists.) the true meaning of faith in the religious sense is faith as fiducia, (Instead of trusting a set of statements about God, it is a trust in God as a rock, one to rely on, etc.) faith as fidelitas (Like a human relationship, this kind of faith is loyalty, allegiance and commitment.) and faith as visio (a way of seeing the world). A true meaning of "belief" in the religious sense is "believe in" a trusting relationship with God, instead of "believing that" certain set of facts about God are true.

Now, to me, the Bible is full of metaphorical language. It practically bleeds it. But that doesn't mean it is false.
Let's take the parable of the Good Samaritan. Nobody debates over whether or not that literally happened, but does that mean it's false? No, the message that is deeper within that parable is definitely true.
As for Creationism versus Evolution, as somebody beautifully put it earlier, Genesis is Israel's account of "why" instead of "how". Also earlier stated, it is more about the relationship between humans and God (in Genesis, it tells about how we were separated from Him.) It cannot be demonstrated by conventional means and prove as fact, but can be seen as the way things are, and to many, it is truth. (God created everything, creation was good, we lived together with Him but something awful happened and were separated from God , etc.)

To me, there is no conflict between science and religion.
The Bible itself tells how to find an abundant life, not how life became abundant. ;)
Damn, it's like 2 am. This post probably won't make sense tomorrow. I should get some sleep.

PS - Blessed Condoms, the story: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4159/is_20061126/ai_n16876465

CELTIC

06-08-2008, 11:47 AM

santa claus exists. false. we have been to the north pole, and we have seen no house with a fat guy that lives in it.
To be correct they say santa lives in Lapland which is actually in Finland

BoxOfFun

06-10-2008, 12:32 PM

If you don't believe in God, and he does exist, you go to Hell. However, if he does not exist in this situation, you can never prove your point from first hand experience because you have stopped existing.

If you do believe in God, and he exists, you go to Heaven. If he does not exist in the situation, you have not lost anything, because you are just as dead as an atheist.

My conclusion is that it's best to believe in God, regardless of whether or not he exists in reality.

Underling

06-10-2008, 12:48 PM

you don't believe in 100's of other gods, you're chances are practically just as bad...

BoxOfFun

06-10-2008, 01:54 PM

Not really, because (most) religions say that believers of other faiths have just as large a chance of getting into Heaven.

Henriksson

06-10-2008, 03:09 PM

Er... that's just Pascal's Wager dressed in a different verbage.

You have a magic gun. It can either shoot blanks or real bullets. The chance of it shooting a real bullet is infinitely small. If you place it against your head and shoot, you have a (VERY small) chance of dying. If you don't, your whole life is dedicated to follow the Bible. What do you choose?

WillPhanto1

06-10-2008, 10:30 PM

Why is the gun "magic"? They make guns that can fire both blanks and live ammo (though they have to be specially made blanks.). And also that doesn't make sense. Are you trying to say "if you chose blanks, You don't actually believe God exist, but if you chose real bullets, you a complete idiot"? You're a idiot either why since firing a blank right next to your head will damage your hearing and you'll probably be burned by the gases firing out of the barrel.
But if I have to make a choice, I chose nether, since it's all out stupid to hold gun next to one's head regardless if it's real or not.

Here's something for you to maul over.
There are two neighbors, a man, and a woman, both have gardens, flower gardens in the front, and fruit and vegetable gardens in the back.
The Woman, thinking that things can grow just fine on their own, took a shovel, dug up her gardens, sowed her seed in a semi order, watered them once, and never touched them again. Thinking they would be fine.
The Man, using various tools, dug and cultivated the soil of his gardens. sowed his seed with care, insuring that his rows were straight, and the seeds were a proper distance. And during the seasons he weeded, watered, and cared for his gardens.
During the Summer, The Man's flowers showed beautifully in front of his home, his love reflected in them. The Woman's flower bed was a poor sight, only a few flowers made it to adulthood, and they were sickly looking, her neglect was reflected.
In the Fall, the Man harvested the food from his fruit and vegetables garden. The fruits and vegetables were great and many, tasty and filling, He had more then he alone could have eaten, so he shared his harvest with his family and friends.
The Woman however, her garden was worst then her flowerbed, only a few plants grew, and their nutrition sucked away by the weeds that grew around them, and any fruit and vegetables that did grew was eaten away by bugs, or simply rotted. Her garden yielded nothing for her.
The Man noticed the troubles with The Woman's gardens, and being a kind man he went over, offered her some fruit from his garden, and said he can teach her gardening. . . It's up to you to decide what she answers.

The Morel of my story is that life without Love, can never be as beautiful as life with Love.
So I ask you, how can we have such a beautiful universe, without a Loving Being caring for it?

killshot

06-10-2008, 10:43 PM

The universe is not a garden. Also, why is it that God only gets credit for making beautiful things? What about things like cancer, infections, oozing sores, maggots, flesh eating bacteria, dead babies, etc...

WillPhanto1

06-10-2008, 11:10 PM

I'm not calling the universe a garden, my story is suppose to show how love gives more life. Something that is loved grows stronger.
Also, why is it that God only gets credit for making beautiful things? What about things like cancer, infections, oozing sores, maggots, flesh eating bacteria, dead babies, etc...
I wouldn't say God gets "credit" for sickness. But yes, we must take bad along with the good. Remember the Story of Job.
(Though maggots and bacteria are decomposes that break down organic material, which then becomes nutrition for plants, making them an important part of the ecosystem, man science is fun, and it doesn't have to clash with faith. Actually I think maggots count as Detritivores, I know that flies do. )

Henriksson

06-11-2008, 05:39 AM

Love? A phenomena that was created by evolution as a way to keep groups of people together, I believe. Your point is?

killshot

06-11-2008, 09:30 AM

The story of Job? Wasn't that the story of when God destroyed Job's life by killing his servants and animals, then plaguing him with sickness just so God could win what was essentially a bet with Satan? The only moral I see in that story is that God is an asshole.

WillPhanto1

06-11-2008, 06:14 PM

The didactic poem of Job was meant to address human suffering, many Jewish scholars believe the book is a parable rather then an historical account. It's to give people a better understanding about tragedy. Love? A phenomena that was created by evolution as a way to keep groups of people together, I believe. Your point is?
There's far more to Love then that. Have you ever tried to grow something? You must care for it. The point I was making is how is it the world came so far, when everything is so harsh, and everything tries to devour everything else?
Also, if you only think of love as a evolutionary phenomena, you must have some issues.

Underling

06-11-2008, 06:35 PM

no, it's true...

JesusRocks

06-11-2008, 06:43 PM

I can well understand infatuation as being an evolutionary phenomena... but not love itself... we must draw a distinction here. "Love" does not mean "infatuation"... even though the two are sometimes found together and oft confused... esp. in romantic relationships... saying "I love you" based on what you are feeling at the time is not a good tell of whether you really do love that person or not... emotions change. Love does not.

Therefore, we must draw a distinction... even though the distinction would be quite blurry, because love and affectionate emotions are often found side-by-side, and are often intertwined and confused with each other...

MrsSallyBakura

06-11-2008, 08:01 PM

I can't believe people have ignored your wonderfully thought-out 2AM insight.
Now, to me, the Bible is full of metaphorical language. It practically bleeds it. But that doesn't mean it is false.
I agree fully. That is why there are courses called, "The Bible as Literature" and whatnot at respected public universities. The language is very simple but its message is not, kind of like a good children's book.
It is now understood as what you need when belief and knowledge conflict, which leads to a literal-factual reading of the Bible. This happens when you prioritize "logos" (Logic) and dismiss "mythos" (Myth) as false, and this is where conflicts arise between religion and the secular world. To finally relate it to this thread, Christians have defended the literal factuality of Biblical stories, engaged in a "war" with science like Genesis vs Evolution, etc. The reason for this is that they identified truth with factuality; if the stories aren't factual, they aren't true. If they aren't true, then the Bible isn't true. What is at stake is their view on God itself. However, faith was never meant to be that way.
I wish this quote could be a bit shorter, but I kept reading the next sentence and going, "I'll quote that too!" "Oh, that's excellent!" etc...
But in response specifically to what you said about logic and myth and how religion feels like it needs to take away the myth portion in order to compete with the war-that-shouldn't-be between religion and science. As a whole, our secular world has lost touch with the mythical or spiritual aspects of human nature. Before science could answer our questions, humans answered questions with religion, such as how the sun rises and sets and how people were made, etc. Now that science has answered a lot of questions, and since science doesn't really have a spiritual aspect to it, our secular society as a whole just shrugs off anything they can't see or hear as non-existent.
There's just something about us that needs imagination and faith in what we can't see. People love fantasy so much, especially these days, because they strive for something so unreal yet has many real qualities.

This post probably made no sense... but I hope you see where I'm coming from at least.
no, it's true...
WillPhanto said
if you only think of love as a evolutionary phenomena
So yes it's true, but it's missing something.

killshot

06-11-2008, 10:10 PM

Before science could answer our questions, humans answered questions with religion, such as how the sun rises and sets and how people were made, etc.
This is a true statement. However, religion is nothing more than a first attempt to understand the world around us. In the infancy of mankind, early humans made up all sorts of explainations to satisfy their natural curiosity. A simple way to explain our existance is to assume that someone made us. It is human nature to assume that there is human or human-like involvement at work in unexplainable phenomenon. If you want proof of this, just listen to the questions of a young child (has a child ever asked you who makes it rain? Or who planted all the trees?) God is just the personified manifestation of all mankind's unanswered questions. Now that science has stepped in and explained all of those previously unanswered questions, there is no need for God in this world. The bible says that man was created in God's image, however the opposite is true.

Underling

06-12-2008, 05:54 AM

that's rather circular reasoning...
you're already assuming love is something more than neurochemistry... which it isn't...

JesusRocks

06-12-2008, 07:15 AM

you're assuming that love is an emotion...

Henriksson

06-12-2008, 07:21 AM

But it is, just like happiness, sadness and so on...

If you think love is something more than that, you gotta back it up with some proof.

JesusRocks

06-12-2008, 08:05 AM

you would have to back up the part about love being mere neurochemistry... and explain why what you are proving is not merely that infatuation is neurochemistry... There is a difference, and the difference is not in intensity strength, rather in duration.
We all know from experience that emotions like happiness, sadness, infatuation etc... do not remain all the time. One day we might be sad, then something will cheer us up, so we won't be sad any more... One day we might be completely smitten by someone, and they might betray us, disappoint us, or something similar... and the previous attraction may go and be replaced with feelings of resent or even anger (i'm talking major betrayal)... but love continues.

You're probably going to discount my words now because I will be using the Bible, but at least I am using it, not as a science book, but to address something that it was meant to address: humanity.
1 Corinthians 13 tells us quite a long list of the aspects of real love.

"And now I will show you the best way of all.
I may speak in different languages of people or even angels. But if I do not have love, I am only a noisy bell or a crashing symbol.
I may have the gift of prophecy. I may understand all the secret things of God and have all knowledge, and I may have faith so great I can move mountains.
But even with all these things, if I do not have love, then I am nothing.
I may give away everything I have, and I may even give my body as an offering to be burnt. But I gain nothing if I do not have love.

Love is patient and kind. Love is not jealous, it does not boast, and it is not proud. Love is not rude, is not selfish, and does not get upset with others. Love does not count up wrongs that have been done. Love is not happy with evil but is happy with the truth. Love patiently accepts all things. It always trusts, always hopes, and always remains strong.

Love never ends. There are gifts of prophecy, but they will be ended. There are gifts of speaking in different languages, but those gifts will stop. There is the gift of knowledge, but it will come to an end. The reason is that our knowledge and our ability to prophesy are not perfect. But when perfection comes, the things that are not perfect will end. When I was a child, I talked like a child, I reasoned like a child, I thought like a child. When I became a man, I stopped those childish ways. It is the same with us. Now we see a dim reflection, as if we were looking into a mirror, but then we shall see clearly. Now I know only a part, but then I will know fully, as God has known me. So these three things continue for ever; faith, hope and love. And the greatest of these is love."

This does not speak of infatuation. Of course, wtih everything we do, we use our brains to think about it and process it etc... Our neurochemistry pretty much controls everything, but to say that this is merely an evolutionary construct to prolong a species and keep groups of people together, is a gross understatement. Yes, it may do that, but it is not merely that... Love is against what seems to be human nature... not being selfish, giving up your life, continuing to love even though you have been betrayed etc...

Yes, of course there is a lot of neurochemistry that goes on here, but doing something like this is against human nature and transcends the pre-programmed chemistry... it's choosing to love regardless of what you are feeling at the time. You're feeling betrayed, unloved, depressed, angry, trapped, hurt, like nothing is every going to be right again. Choosing to love in this situation is an ultimately freeing experience, and a part of choosing to love is forgiving. Things might never, ever be the same again, but forgiving doesn't say that it has to go back to how it was.

(PS: you cannot say I am "cherry-picking" verses because I just quoted an entire chapter which specifically deals with the subject)

killshot

06-12-2008, 09:24 AM

you cannot say I am "cherry-picking" verses because I just quoted an entire chapter which specifically deals with the subject
Oh, yes I can. The bible has a rather warped sense of what love is. According to the bible, God loves us so much that he is willing to subject us to a horrific eternal punishment for breaking one of his ten rules.

I would like for you to honestly answer this question: Would your earthly father be willing to send you to hell, no matter how much you deserved it? If the answer is no, then wouldn't your earthly father be more loving than God?Love is patient and kind. Love is not jealous, it does not boast, and it is not proud. Love is not rude, is not selfish, and does not get upset with others. Love does not count up wrongs that have been done. Love is not happy with evil but is happy with the truth. Love patiently accepts all things. It always trusts, always hopes, and always remains strong.
I am so glad you posted this because it saves me the trouble of having to look it up. This is a perfect example of what love is supposed to be. I ask you, does this definition of love correspond with a god that is willing to torture you for eternity?

JesusRocks

06-12-2008, 09:41 AM

you misunderstand... it is not God who sends us to hell... we send ourselves. God is the source and sustainer of all life, apart from him, nothing can live. So it is not God that sends us to hell, we choose to alienate ourselves from God, which comes to our own undoing.

When you turn your back on light, there is only shadow... when you turn your back on life, there is only death... when you turn your back on God, there is only hell.

It is the natural consequence of hell that God wants to save us from, by grafting us back onto the source of life, through dying in our place.

Underling

06-12-2008, 12:06 PM

Yes, of course there is a lot of neurochemistry that goes on here, but doing something like this is against human nature and transcends the pre-programmed chemistry.
no, it follows human nature exactly...
it compels parents to raise their offspring and so pass on their genes successfully...
it compels people to couple and procreate and so pass on their genes successfully...

and no, human nature is not selfish, this is typical christian bullshit that we're all somehow flawed and need forgiveness, selflessness plays an important evolutionary role and is demonstrable even in the animal kingdom...

agrajagthetesty

06-12-2008, 03:17 PM

It is not God that sends us to hell, we choose to alienate ourselves from God, which comes to our own undoing.
If God was all-powerful and loved us so much, he would want to and be able to save us from hell.Selflessness plays an important evolutionary role and is demonstrable even in the animal kingdom.
Yes. Hence, kindness can help to preserve your own genes, get the aid of another animal in exchange for you helping them, build up a good reputation, etc.

Also, love is not everlasting. People can be genuinely in love with and committed to each other, and even make vows to be eternally loyal (marriage), and then divorce years later. People fall out of love just as they fall into it.

WillPhanto1

06-13-2008, 09:31 PM

I ask you, does this definition of love correspond with a god that is willing to torture you for eternity?If God was all-powerful and loved us so much, he would want to and be able to save us from hell.
Actions have consequences, if you do evil you'll face punishment, or if you do evil, evil will happen to you. (in other cultures it's called karma) But believe me, it hurts God deeply to punish anyone. But he has/had to teach people as a whole, right from wrong. What is good and what is evil. But it always pained him. But that's what Jesus died for, so we wouldn't have to go to Hell. He was sent to teach us, and to atone for our sins. So God wouldn't have to punish anyone anymore.

agrajagthetesty

06-14-2008, 04:57 AM

But believe me, it hurts God deeply to punish anyone. But he has/had to teach people as a whole, right from wrong.
I thought God wasn't vengeful? If he really loves us so much, he wouldn't punish us. I don't know about you but I could never sentence those I love to an eternity of torment, no matter what they did.But that's what Jesus died for, so we wouldn't have to go to Hell.
Whoa, hold up there. You're saying that since Jesus died no-one goes to hell any more? That's not what I was told at church, and it's not what many evangelists are saying on television.

BoxOfFun

06-14-2008, 05:18 AM

Whoa, hold up there. You're saying that since Jesus died no-one goes to hell any more? That's not what I was told at church, and it's not what many evangelists are saying on television.
Well, since it is human nature to sin, a punishment must follow for everybody. Christians believe Jesus died to take the punishment for us, so those who truly love God don't suffer for all eternity. It's believed most people will go to Purgatory, which is like a temporary Hell.

agrajagthetesty

06-14-2008, 05:24 AM

Well, since it is human nature to sin, a punishment must follow for everybody. Christians believe Jesus died to take the punishment for us, so those who truly love God don't suffer for all eternity. It's believed most people will go to Purgatory, which is like a temporary Hell.
Jesus died to take the punishment for us... and yet we still all get punished. <img src='/images/emoticons/smiley5.png'> And are you saying that before Jesus died, even those who loved God would suffer for all eternity? That sounds horrendously cruel, as I thought faith in God was supposed to be an ultimate virtue. And I know several Christians who don't believe in Purgatory.

BoxOfFun

06-14-2008, 05:31 AM

Jesus died to take the punishment for us... and yet we still all get punished.
Well, I guess I was wrong. I suppose he didn't really die to take the punishment, just give us large chance of escaping it.And are you saying that before Jesus died, even those who loved God would suffer for all eternity?
After Jesus died, he went to Hell and saved everyone who loved God but were still punished. Because time doesn't pass in Hell in the same way it does on Earth, they felt no suffering.And I know several Christians who don't believe in Purgatory.
Well, that's a matter of opinion, isn't it?

WillPhanto1

06-14-2008, 05:34 AM

Whoa, hold up there. You're saying that since Jesus died no-one goes to hell any more? That's not what I was told at church, and it's not what many evangelists are saying on television.
Most evangelists will use Hell as a way of scaring people into faith, but any REAL Christian well tell you that we all have been saved already. In the original Jewish traditions, people didn't go quite go to Hell, they died, Christ came to save people from death.
Which Church did you went to?
I thought God wasn't vengeful? If he really loves us so much, he wouldn't punish us. I don't know about you but I could never sentence those I love to an eternity of torment, no matter what they did.
Like JesusRocks said, we send ourselves to Hell. Although Like I said before, original Jewish traditions have a place called Sheol, which is often mis-translated as Hell. Which all people went, good and bad, slave or king. It's either a place that those in Sheol await the resurrection either in comfort (in the bosom of Abraham) or in torment. Or at that time (second century BC) Jews who rejected the Oral Torah believed that Sheol meant simply the grave.

Edit:
And are you saying that before Jesus died, even those who loved God would suffer for all eternity? No, they were given comfort in the afterlife.

agrajagthetesty

06-14-2008, 05:51 AM

After Jesus died, he went to Hell and saved everyone who loved God but were still punished. Because time doesn't pass in Hell in the same way it does on Earth, they felt no suffering.
I've never heard anyone else explain it in this way. It does make sense, I'm just interested that I haven't come across this opinion before. (At this point I could get defensive about only those who love God being saved... but I won't.)Well, that's a matter of opinion, isn't it?
Not if it involves a holy book containing the words of God, surely?Most evangelists will use Hell as a way of scaring people into faith, but any REAL Christian well tell you that we all have been saved already.
Evangelists take their lessons from the same book, pray in the same way and follow the same values as other Christians. And just what are you saying here? You seem to be arguing that we have all been saved, but also that if we do bad things we will suffer for all eternity. I don't think the two are compatible.Which Church did you went to?
Church of England.Like JesusRocks said, we send ourselves to Hell.
Like I said, if God loves us that much and is that forgiving and that powerful, he would save us from such suffering.

BoxOfFun

06-14-2008, 12:00 PM

I've never heard anyone else explain it in this way. It does make sense, I'm just interested that I haven't come across this opinion before.
That's odd, as I learned this in Religious Education back in '02.(At this point I could get defensive about only those who love God being saved... but I won't.)
I've heard that to love God's work is to love God himself. I don't really believe it, because you could love, say, nature, but still be an atheist. Still, it might offer an argument to what you said.

agrajagthetesty

06-14-2008, 04:51 PM

That's odd, as I learned this in Religious Education back in '02.
In my Religious Education lessons we learn about religious festivals, places of worship, rites of passage and so on, not stuff like that. We never got taught that Jesus saved those in hell, because that's not religious education, that's religious conditioning.I've heard that to love God's work is to love God himself.
Not in the case of many people I know.You could love, say, nature, but still be an atheist.
Yes, you could. Or you could do a vast amount of good, but still be an atheist. Conversely, some people take certain teachings of the Bible to extremes (for example, the part where it states that certain land is owed to certain people, and that in these cases it is not only acceptable but correct to slaughter the people already living there, including women and children). Undoubtedly these people have the utmost faith in God, but I personally would describe them as evil. I thinks it's offensive to say that if you don't believe in God you automatically get sent to hell, because in my opinion people's actions are what count, and their religious beliefs are irrelevant.

darkarcher

06-14-2008, 07:40 PM

Like I said, if God loves us that much and is that forgiving and that powerful, he would save us from such suffering.
Because part of God's plan for forgiveness is that we have to ask for it. If someone refuses that offer, then they still have to suffer the consequences of their sins.

JesusRocks

06-14-2008, 08:09 PM

Regarding your response to Like JesusRocks said, we send ourselves to Hell.
Which is:Like I said, if God loves us that much and is that forgiving and that powerful, he would save us from such suffering.
(Please, please, please pay special extra attention to the stuff in the bold, and take them into account, and keep them especially in mind, when reading the rest of this.)

I'm gonna splice in some of response to another comment about "if God was that loving he wouldn't punish us" or words to that effect.
Firstly, Jesus came to die in our place, so that the "such suffering" would be lumped onto Him, and not onto us. Of course, we are still given to choice whether or not to accept or reject what Jesus did... in other words, God holds His hands out to us, offering, and pleading for us to take His gift of trading places. We can still say "no".
What Jesus did for us requires a response from us... Do we say "yes, I accept Your free gift" or do we say "no thanks, i want to continue to walk away from you."

That is why it's not a case of "since Jesus died no one goes to hell anymore". Jesus has never required us to be perfect before we come to Him. Jesus has never required holiness from us before we come, never required that we get to a certain point in our lives where there are no problems; never required that we clean up our act before we come; never required that we follow rules, regulations and rituals, nor has He ever required obedience before we come to Him.
Jesus only ever requires that we say "yes" to Him.
Willingness to obey Him comes after, out of thankfulness. In other words, we choose to put Jesus in the first position in our lives, so that we can then let Him bless and change the rest of our lives. He never forces Himself upon us.

If you were a dad, and your son/daughter was being really naughty, would you punish or rebuke them? Of course! Parents have been doing this for millenia, and it helps to teach children right from wrong. Of course parents nowdays have the "timeout" instead of the "smacked bum"... we have yet to see how effective this really is, but it would probably be just as effective, if the child views it as a punishment.

Hell, however, is a different punishment. Judgment is when God compares our lives, to His Law. If His Law is broken, it is required, by justice, that we recieve the punishment for breaking the Law. Please read on...
Just as in modern legal systems a defendant comes before the court, in determining whether he has broken the law, his actions are compared to the standard, which usually is a piece of legislation, or even a developed common law decision. The defendant then pleads his case; sometimes trying to justify himself (as in the case of some defences to, for example, murder). He is then sentenced to the term prescribed by the law.
Our legal system is an imperfect, carbon copy of God's court. We come before God, who does not need a jury, because there is no uncertainty about the mental elements of the crimes. Our lives are compared to the standard prescribed by God's legislation. We plead our case, trying to justify ourselves. We are sentenced to the term prescribed by the Law. The term prescribed by God's Law for breaking it, is death, there can be no other because in committing the crime we face away from God, which is away from Life, and into the shadow, which is death. (Note how the natural consequence and justice tie in with each other here).

When God looks at our lives, He sees all the breakages of the Law we have ever done. When we say "yes" to Jesus, our life which is marked by our "crimes", is replaced by Jesus' perfect life. So when God looks at our lives (imagine opening a book, and turning to the page our life is on), He sees Jesus' perfect life on our page. He says that our own crimes were paid for in full, by Jesus, and that justice (which is punishment of sin, not the sinner), has been done.

We are free. This freedom from judgment is not something that we only have when we give account of the things we've done, but is for us now, here, right now.

Now, it is perfectly clear that God does not want to punish us, that is why He sent Jesus to die in our place, so that we wouldn't have to be punished for our sins. Our sins instead are taken off of us, and placed on Jesus. Our sin is not who we are Our sin is removed from us, and placed on Jesus, because (and i can't stress this enough), God punishes SIN, not the SINNER ... but we are punished ourselves, because, while our sin is on us, it is still part of us.

This is a long-winded and imperfect explanation. The other Christians here can pick up on the bits that need clarifying and/or explaining further... also picking up on the bits I have missed out

killshot

06-14-2008, 09:49 PM

A loving God would not punish people matter what their sins may be. Please don't confuse eternal punisment with the slight reprimand that parents might adminster to their children. A parental punishment is used to teach children a lesson and to help them make better decisions later in life. There is nothing to be learned from eternal punishment. It is just childish retribution for actions committed in the past. Jesus only ever requires that we say "yes" to Him.
It seems like a simple choice when you phrase it this way. However, if you do not believe in Jesus in the first place then this choice is rather silly. It is not a matter of atheists saying "No" to Jesus. We are not turning our backs on God. We have merely reasoned that hell is a fictious place and we have no reason to fear it.

darkarcher

06-14-2008, 10:30 PM

A loving God would not punish people matter what their sins may be.
However, a holy and just God will not leave sins unpunished. In His love, God provided a way for us to allow another to take the judgement that we have called upon ourselves. Jesus became the replacement for those who would accept it, but those who do not must receive that punishment themselves.It seems like a simple choice when you phrase it this way.
In reality, it is.

agrajagthetesty

06-15-2008, 06:15 AM

There is nothing to be learned from eternal punishment. It is just childish retribution for actions committed in the past.
Precisely. Punishment aims to teach and improve a person. Once your life is over and you are unable to use the lessons learned, punishment simply becomes revenge.It is not a matter of atheists saying "No" to Jesus. We are not turning our backs on God.
Yes, thank you! I am getting sick of people claiming that atheists reject God. How can you reject something you don't believe in?A holy and just God will not leave sins unpunished.
"...for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation..." -Exodus 20:5
"Whoever has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him." -Matthew 13:12
That doesn't sound very just to me.

WillPhanto1

06-15-2008, 09:32 AM

"...for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation..." -Exodus 20:5
"Whoever has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him." -Matthew 13:12
That doesn't sound very just to me.
Lets look at the full quotes:
"I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.

3 "You shall have no other gods before [a] me.

4 "You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing love to a thousand {generations} of those who love me and keep my commandments.
-Exodus 20:1-6
God was giving the 1st commandment, God was saying the penalty for breaking the commandment. And of course, this is The Old Testament, before they had Jesus to forgive them all their sins.

10The disciples came to him and asked, "Why do you speak to the people in parables?"

11 He replied, "The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them. 12 Whoever has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him. 13 This is why I speak to them in parables:
"Though seeing, they do not see;
though hearing, they do not hear or understand. 14 In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah:
" 'You will be ever hearing but never understanding;
you will be ever seeing but never perceiving.
15 For this people's heart has become calloused;
they hardly hear with their ears,
and they have closed their eyes.
Otherwise they might see with their eyes,
hear with their ears,
understand with their hearts
and turn, and I would heal them.'[a] 16But blessed are your eyes because they see, and your ears because they hear. 17For I tell you the truth, many prophets and righteous men longed to see what you see but did not see it, and to hear what you hear but did not hear it.
-Matthew 13: 10-17
This is from the The Parable of the Sower, and as you see, Jesus is explaining why he uses Parables in his teachings. This has nothing to do with the laws or anything. It has to do with people's understanding.
A loving God would not punish people matter what their sins may be. Please don't confuse eternal punisment with the slight reprimand that parents might adminster to their children. A parental punishment is used to teach children a lesson and to help them make better decisions later in life. There is nothing to be learned from eternal punishment. It is just childish retribution for actions committed in the past.
"Punishment" isn't the right word, penalty would be the better word. But if you ask someone "what do you call it when a criminal is fined, or sent to jail?" they'll most likely answer "punishment". Which is common for people to use a more often used word which has the same or similar meaning.
As for us getting penalties for breaking God's law, you can't have a law without there being a consequence for breaking the law.
But yet again, we now have Jesus to pay a debt in full.
Also, some believe that those in Hell would be released at the end of the world to be judge along with living, so they'll get a second chance.
Evangelists take their lessons from the same book, pray in the same way and follow the same values as other Christians. And just what are you saying here? You seem to be arguing that we have all been saved, but also that if we do bad things we will suffer for all eternity. I don't think the two are compatible.
I should have Clarified further. In a sense we have a "free pass", sort to say, in Jesus, but without it, one would be judged, and if his sins are sufficient enough, they're sent to Hell.

agrajagthetesty

06-15-2008, 12:23 PM

God was giving the 1st commandment, God was saying the penalty for breaking the commandment.
So the penalty affects the sinner, the children of the sinner, the grandchildren of the sinner and the great-grandchildren of the sinner? No matter what the crime, that doesn't sound just to me. The children are all innocents.This has nothing to do with the laws or anything. It has to do with people's understanding.
Nevertheless, Jesus is saying that he will give to those who already have, and take away from those who are in need. That is not love for all people. That is love for a certain group of people at the expense of others, which I see as unfair. I read the whole quotes before I posted the extracts, and my opinion still stands.You can't have a law without there being a consequence for breaking the law.
You can if you're God. Isn't God free to break his own laws as he sees fit?In a sense we have a "free pass", sort to say, in Jesus, but without it, one would be judged, and if his sins are sufficient enough, they're sent to Hell.
Ok, so in short, those who believe and accept God are all saved. Those who don't could be saved or damned, depending on their deeds. Right?

darkarcher

06-15-2008, 03:55 PM

So the penalty affects the sinner, the children of the sinner, the grandchildren of the sinner and the great-grandchildren of the sinner? No matter what the crime, that doesn't sound just to me. The children are all innocents.
You also have to understand the kind of patterns that the Israelites commonly fell into. In such a case, the children were not innocent because idolatry in one generation would lead to idolatry in the next and so on, but once Israel worshiped God again he began to bless them once more.Nevertheless, Jesus is saying that he will give to those who already have, and take away from those who are in need. That is not love for all people. That is love for a certain group of people at the expense of others, which I see as unfair. I read the whole quotes before I posted the extracts, and my opinion still stands.
Jesus in the passage is referring to the choices of the listeners, though. He explained that he speaks in parables so that listeners could understand concepts of the kingdom of God. Then, those who understand and wish to learn more will be given more, but those who refuse to understand ("hearing but never understanding...seeing but never perceiving") will receive no more truth, and it shall be hidden from them because they refuse to seek it out.You can if you're God. Isn't God free to break his own laws as he sees fit?
Technically, yes. However, God often places himself under his own laws as part of his "just" characteristics.Ok, so in short, those who believe and accept God are all saved. Those who don't could be saved or damned, depending on their deeds. Right?
This depends on how you interpret the judgement. Many would say that the final judgement is basically just like signing off on a deal that's already been completed: those who have gone to hell are forever condemned and those who have gone to heaven are forever redeemed.

agrajagthetesty

06-15-2008, 06:15 PM

In such a case, the children were not innocent because idolatry in one generation would lead to idolatry in the next and so on, but once Israel worshiped God again he began to bless them once more.
But the children were only believing what they had been told, which genetically is a vital trait in children. You can hardly blame them. Also, I see double standards here: passing on your religion to your children is a crime worthy of eternal damnation... unless you pass on the right religion, of course, in which case it's to be applauded. Nope, sorry. I still don't accept that attitude as morally acceptable.God often places himself under his own laws as part of his "just" characteristics.
If the laws are unjust, God is unjust. And I see many of the laws as unjust, including the one above, alongside the one encouraging genocide.

JesusRocks

06-15-2008, 07:43 PM

Sorry to have caused confusion here, but if you had paid attention to what i said past the part about parental reprimand you will find:Hell, however, is a different punishment.
I then go on to explain judgment using the nearest equivalent we have in our society: The Legal System

darkarcher

06-15-2008, 08:41 PM

But the children were only believing what they had been told
However, the children also had a choice. The truth was always accessible for the people to find, and many times they did.passing on your religion to your children is a crime worthy of eternal damnation
I never said this, and neither does the Bible. The punishment is for not believing in God, and is the personal choice of the person.

agrajagthetesty

06-16-2008, 09:03 AM

However, the children also had a choice. The truth was always accessible for the people to find, and many times they did.
How are you supposed to know the difference between all the gods? How can you possibly decide which is the "real" one, especially when your parents have taught you to worship a particular one? As far as I can tell, there is no evidence of any god at all, much less enough evidence to show you which religion has it right. Besides, children do not have a choice which god to worship. Most Christian people would have been Jewish if they were brought up in a Jewish family, and vice versa.The punishment is for not believing in God, and is the personal choice of the person.
In this case, the punishment is for believing in the wrong god, and it applies to the children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren of the "sinner". You were the one who tried to justify this by saying that "idolatry in one generation would lead to idolatry in the next", in which case the first "sinner" is being punished for passing on their religion to their children. I simply assumed that the punishment would be hell.

BoxOfFun

06-16-2008, 03:20 PM

Most Christian people would have been Jewish if they were brought up in a Jewish family, and vice versa.
Not really. My grandfather was Jewish, so my father was brought up in a Jewish family. However, since Judaism is passed down from the mother's side, my father became Christian.

So, while I am Jewish Ethically, I am actually Christian in terms of belief.

agrajagthetesty

06-16-2008, 03:56 PM

My grandfather was Jewish, so my father was brought up in a Jewish family. However, since Judaism is passed down from the mother's side, my father became Christian.
That was probably a bad example. However, my point still stands that usually, people adopt the religion of their family. Obviously there are exceptions, but this is often the case, and biologically the theory makes sense.

Underling

06-16-2008, 04:26 PM

certainly geographical at least

cionicgreycloak

06-18-2008, 11:04 AM

you can see your parents filling stockings, if its an invisible unicorn then how can it be pink,if it doesnt folow the laws of physics it cant technically orbit the sun, if your hand was a bug then you shouldnt be able to feel it........more to come

WillPhanto1

06-18-2008, 06:28 PM

You also seemed to miss the part where He said "but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.". So the cycle can easily be broken by the second or third generation of the sinner if those children Love God and follow his laws.
Yes, children often take the religion of their family, but they still have their God given free will, they can discover and change at their desire. You for one are an example of that, You said you were raised in the Anglican Church, but correct me if I�m wrong, now you�re an Atheist. People can change, they always have a choice. Not to mention that the whole "punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me" was Old Testament stuff, when God had his focus on the Jewish people, and had to deal out punishments to ensure that His Creation didn't become corrupted beyond repair. But now we have Jesus to forgive and save us (the entire world) from our sins. God has no reason to be, for lack of a better word, "wrathful" towards sinners.
Also, what kind of example would God make if he broke his own laws? Would you stand for it if a police officer broke laws as he saw fit, or our World Leaders breaking laws (yes, I'm quite aware, so no need to mention it, he'll be gone soon anyway)?

Why do Atheists have such problems with people of faith? Any faith. So what we believe in a being that Loves us, that He created us because He wanted us. That's one thing separates The God of Israel apart from most other gods at the time and area. Other religions around that part of the world had it that humanity was a mistake. While The God of Abraham created humans out of Love.
So why do you have a problem with people believing in God. If some people of faith try to convert you, just say your not interested, and respectfully ask them to leave you alone.
Really, the original intention of the thread seems to be nothing more then a attack on faith.
I can understand if you're tired of people bringing God up in other threads, but running into other people's believes is part of life and you just have to accept it. It's still good to talk about it, but when you reach an a impasse, you could just do the peaceful thing and agree to disagree, or just start tearing into each other.
I have no problems with atheists except when they disrespect by believes.

JesusRocks

06-18-2008, 06:31 PM

As usual with these kinds of discussion, we're going absolutely nowhere... I think I might unwatch this now...

agrajagthetesty

06-18-2008, 07:25 PM

People can change, they always have a choice.
Indeed. In fact, it seems a bit unfair for God to punish people for their own free choice over which god to worship, wouldn't you agree? Your argument can be applied just as easily to the children's decision to worship other gods. Also, and I can't stress this enough, there is absolutely no way to know which god is the "right" one. How do you know whether your personal religious experience is with God or with Allah? Or with any other of the thousands of gods which humanity has worshipped at some point in history, for that matter?But now we have Jesus to forgive and save us
Please don't try to justify the Old Testament by saying that Jesus reverses or somehow makes up for it. It's the same god, the same holy book and the same faith. Whatever God was like then, he surely must be like now, and seeing as he and Jesus are the same being anyway, I find it hard to see your point here. Why would God create the world so that he would have to sacrifice his son, anyway? Why couldn't he just forgive our sins without Jesus' execution? Parents do not always have to punish their children for doing wrong, and people are even pardoned in court on occasion, so surely God would be able to do the same.Also, what kind of example would God make if he broke his own laws?
Not quite my point. If God wants to save those he loves, he ought to be able to install rules that would ensure that would happen right from the start.Why do Atheists have such problems with people of faith?
We have no problems with most of the people, simply with a faith that can be manipulated and used to justify violence, prejudice and even genocide. However, and I'm speaking personally here, I do have a problem with the fact that certain religious people completely ignore scientific evidence against their faith- but constantly cite other evidence which could be interpreted as supporting it. There is no even playing field in these matters, especially as religious opinions are challenged not nearly as often as other opinions on things such as politics. That's something I object to.If some people of faith try to convert you, just say your not interested, and respectfully ask them to leave you alone.
This would be a reasonable thing to say if certain religious groups were not attempting to take over the government and forcibly convert others to their faith. Yes, they are a minority and take their beliefs to the extreme, but they worship the same god, and- most importantly- everything they do can be justified by their holy books if you look at it in a particular way.I can understand if you're tired of people bringing God up in other threads, but running into other people's believes is part of life and you just have to accept it.
I'm not tired of it at all. In fact, as I've said before, I enjoy all debate, and debate is best when people care about the topic. However, I am deeply concerned that you seem to view me as so intolerant. Discussing religion would be pointless if I only spoke with other atheists, not to mention arrogant and narrow-minded. I like to expand my experience and find out about various belief systems, as I find religion psychologically and socially fascinating and am interested by how much effect it can have on a person. So in fact, I've more than accepted the fact that others have different beliefs from my own.It's still good to talk about it, but when you reach an a impasse, you could just do the peaceful thing and agree to disagree.
There have been several threads of conversation here that have been dropped at precisely this point. When we recognise that the discussion has reached a standstill and we have all expressed our opinions, so far we have all moved on. I'm not trying to convert anyone here, and I don't think anyone else is either, so aren't we by default agreeing to disagree?I have no problems with atheists except when they disrespect by believes.
I apologise if I have seemed disrespectful. I have tried to listen carefully to everyone's points of view, and to explain my own adequately in my responses. I have been honest, but I don't think that what I have said has been offensive.

WillPhanto1

06-18-2008, 09:52 PM

I wasn't talking about you (agrajagthetesty) in particular, just some certain atheists in general, who always seem like they're trying tear into your faith.
As for God punishing people for their free choice (in general), what about people who commit crimes such as theft, murder, rape, etc. They had the free choice to do so, but just because they had the free choice, doesn't mean they can't make bad, or evil choices. And when He punished people, it usually to teach all, not just the people he punished, kind of a big picture view.
As for knowing who is the right religion, unless you gotten a chance to speak to The right God personally, there's not really anyway to tell except what you feel in your heart. I know when I first walked up to the altar at church, I felt a strong, Loving presence. So that's my experience.
The differences between The Old Testament And New Testament, is that the Old Testament was written by and for, Jews, while the New Testament was written for All. And not did Jesus die for own sins, he made clean all things, so all nations with different creeds and cultures could join with the Jews, as children of God. Not quite my point. If God wants to save those he loves, he ought to be able to install rules that would ensure that would happen right from the start.
We human being made with free choice, many would still break any rule God made. So can he do? Just let people run ramped, not caring what or who they hurt, and do nothing against it? They say that the Devil doesn't create evil, he just manipulates it, and that evil itself comes from humans. He has the resposablty We have no problems with most of the people, simply with a faith that can be manipulated and used to justify violence, prejudice and even genocide.This would be a reasonable thing to say if certain religious groups were not attempting to take over the government and forcibly convert others to their faith. Yes, they are a minority and take their beliefs to the extreme, but they worship the same god, and- most importantly- everything they do can be justified by their holy books if you look at it in a particular way.

Any ideal could be manipulated into doing such things, But doing so is the highest blaspheme. I hate in when I hear politicians trying to use faith to push their agenda, and I concenter to be blasphemy. But just because there are those who try to pervert it, doesn't mean there anything wrong with the faith itself.I'm not tired of it at all. In fact, as I've said before, I enjoy all debate, and debate is best when people care about the topic. However, I am deeply concerned that you seem to view me as so intolerant. Discussing religion would be pointless if I only spoke with other atheists, not to mention arrogant and narrow-minded. I like to expand my experience and find out about various belief systems, as I find religion psychologically and socially fascinating and am interested by how much effect it can have on a person. So in fact, I've more than accepted the fact that others have different beliefs from my own.
The thing is, the whole point of this thread is "just try to prove God exists", which really just puts us against each other. However, it would be nice to have a thread where we just talk about our different believes, in a friendly matter, not trying to prove the other wrong, just trying to understand other people�s point a view. Really, someone should make a thread like that. <img src='/images/emoticons/smiley5.png'>

But anyway, I done with this thread. I've said my piece. I agree to disagree.

May the Light enlightenment shine upon you and be gracious to you,
My Love and Peace follow you for the rest your days, Amen.

agrajagthetesty

06-19-2008, 07:54 AM

However, it would be nice to have a thread where we just talk about our different believes, in a friendly matter, not trying to prove the other wrong, just trying to understand other people�s point a view.
Somebody tried to make a thread like this. It's called "Religious views in today's world". But inevitably, it became an argument. I don't think it's really possible to discuss these things without trying to make a point, rather than just explaining your views. Still, I think that this thread has veered off topic too.

Anyway, I agree that we both seem to have made our points here. I'm glad that this discussion has remained civil, and I've enjoyed talking with you.

PersianSpice

06-19-2008, 03:34 PM

This is precisely why I'm agnostic. Don't believe in god but are open to the possibility. Sure, it could be possible for some giant entity living in the sky, taking our money in church, and being a huge hypocrite. But there could also not be. Arguing about the existence of something people all agree can't be seen/detected in the first place is ridiculous and a waste of time. Henceforth, I think religion is a waste of time and people should base their values on what THEY think, not on what some book says.

killshot

06-19-2008, 04:48 PM

I get back to this thread just as it draws to a close. I have the worst luck. Religious debate is one of my main interests and I hate it when people take it personally.

To PersianSpice: I don't consider agnosticism to be a valid stance on the god issue. According to dictionary.com, the word agnostic simply means that you do not believe that the existance of God can be knowable. It is possible to be a agnostic christian. I myself am an agnostic atheist because I don't believe in god or gods and I also believe that it is impossible to know for sure. I don't think debating the existance of god is a waste of time because I find it quite entertaining. I think claiming to be an agnostic is a cop out and you might want to reconsider your stance.

PersianSpice

06-19-2008, 05:36 PM

>_> I'm quite aware of the definition and it pretty much suits me perfectly. It's a perfectly valid stance.There's no way I'm ever going to reconsider what I think. It's only a problem if you make it so. =P

killshot

06-20-2008, 09:27 AM

Fair enough.

langleyassault

06-22-2008, 03:34 AM

<i>Post censored by DarkWarrior.</i>

NMPTILU

07-12-2008, 01:58 PM

Okay, I didn't read all six pages, so don't flame me for that.

Bottom Line: I believe in God. There's no proof that he exists, nor that he doesn't exist. But I believe he exists.

If you want to get into the whole religion debate, here's my stand:
I am currently being raised a Catholic. But so far, I'm not too happy with it. I would like to stay Christian, but some of the Catholic views annoy me. From what I've heard, I think Protestant would be more my thing.

killshot

07-12-2008, 02:16 PM

I think Protestant would be more my thing.
Just give the whole thing up. It makes a lot more sense from the atheist point of view.

darkarcher

07-12-2008, 02:20 PM

That's a matter of opinion. Be careful about off-hand remarks that could make others flame you.

NMPTILU

07-12-2008, 02:44 PM

Just give the whole thing up. It makes a lot more sense from the atheist point of view.
To you it makes more sense. Not to me.

DarkWarrior

07-12-2008, 03:24 PM

Indeed. Your opinion is not fact, killshot, don't treat it as such.

killshot

07-12-2008, 06:25 PM

You're right. I never claimed it was anything more than my opinion. The point is, he seemed to be struggling with his faith and I thought I might try to help. I see religion as a magic trick. Once you know how the trick works, you can't go back to believing in it again.

NMPTILU

07-12-2008, 06:27 PM

Good analogy XD

I don't know, I think I'm still pretty young to be making any big decisions about my faith yet...

(Btw, for future reference, I am a girl xD)

killshot

07-12-2008, 07:12 PM

Terribly sorry about the gender mistake. I just always assume I am speaking with a male if sex can't be determined. I always operate according to the saying, "The internet: Where men are men, women are men, and children are undercover FBI agents."

If your youth concerns you, I was suspicious of religion when I was only 8 and I stopped believing around the age of 11. I was big into dinosuars as a child and the whole 7 seven day creation didn't really jive with what I learned from my national geographic books.

RedRook

07-13-2008, 04:58 AM

I am too lazy to read all of the posts so feel free to be angry at me if my points been stated or has been deemed irrelevant.

The existence of God is unimportant, meaningless and baseless. To debate the existence of God is utterly pointless. The fact that God is believed in is simply what makes God fact because facts are the enemy of truth regardless of truth being subjective. There are a billion different God's existing in the reality of mans ego. There is no viable way to prove or disprove it's existence or lack there of. Man will continue to create Gods and Devils for all of existence. In truth is doesn't matter what you believe just so long as you can take a step back and realize as a race we are wrong in every sense of the word about every opinion or 'fact; we've attempted to prove because we are incapable of viewing the universe as it, rather we view is as we wish it to be because humanity does not exist in the dimension of reality but instead, the dimension of perception. Our microcosms will shape our existence. This alone makes any assumption automatically false and pointless.

In short. You will get a billion people rambling about God and his importance, though admittedly naming no specific God, because there is at least one God for every individual consciousness in existence. Even those who claim to not believe ultimately believe in something, therefore making it the cornerstone of their belief structure and hence, a God. We are all Gods.

"God is dead,
God remains dead,
And we have killed him."
-- Friedrich Nietzsche, The Gay Science.

ZhouYu

07-18-2008, 08:19 PM

Religions teach us one thing, how to judge people. All religions focus themeselves on being the one true religion. Everyone ahs different beliefs and if someone doesn't agree with you then clearly they are wrong. This leads to many of the problems we see in society today. Personally I don't feel the need for any religion in this say in age. Aren't people smart enough to realise the whole concept of choice? There is no need for us to believe that some higher power exists all we need is to understand each other, but as I said people are blinded by their own religion they treat others in a more hateful manner, sometimes in extreme measures.

This personally makes me sick, knowing that people are foolish enough to treat others in such a way. People can believe in whatever they want to believe, heck if someone said that their god was a chocolate bar then who am I to disagree?

darkarcher

07-18-2008, 08:24 PM

While what you said is certainly true to an extent, you're ignoring the fact that people in general will judge each other regardless of religion or not. The human psyche is developed to desire the need to be dominant over others, and religion is merely an outlet of this desire. If you removed all religion, then people would find other reasons to judge each other.

Just another thing to point out is that you want to try to avoid blanket statements. I'm only saying this because your method of explanation came across as assuming all people who follow religion are automatically judgemental.

MrsSallyBakura

07-18-2008, 10:31 PM

Please don't try to justify the Old Testament by saying that Jesus reverses or somehow makes up for it.
I have something to say about that, actually. I wouldn't say Jesus, "makes up for it," but he does reveal a new way of life to a human race that has matured and is able to understand forgiveness.

My boyfriend's AP Calculus teacher during his senior year was talking about derivatives (or something like that, I don't quite remember which term) during class one day. The only reason why they exist is because of physics. Some of the kids in that class had taken Physics the previous year but didn't do physics that way, but rather algebraically. But when they discovered derivatives, they found out how much simpler Physics was when they didn't have to solve anything algebraically. They kept saying stuff like, "Why didn't Mrs. Teacher teach it to us like this? It all makes sense and it's so much easier!" Their math teacher responded, "You wouldn't have understood it back then so you wouldn't have been able to appreciate it."

It's the same thing with Jesus' time on Earth, teaching others about forgiveness. Would humanity at its earliest be able to understand the concept of forgiveness? I have a feeling that if forgiveness was introduced to humanity too soon, we wouldn't have understood it because we wouldn't know what it was like to never be forgiven; we'd take full advantage of getting off the hook and never have followed God. That's why He was so harsh. Humans need to learn and/or experience both sides of the spectrum before being able to understand the true meaning of forgiveness and revenge, both good and evil.

I don't know how many of you will agree with me about this, but it makes sense to me.

Ammeterasu77

07-19-2008, 12:39 AM

Religon is a belief right? So why are people trying to prove/disprove it?

I looked at most of these posts and it's just a bunch of views, beliefs, and oppinions being thrown at one another. This is why I don't like organized religon [ORGANIZED RELIGON- I didn't say anything about personal beliefs so those about to flame, stfu], it just leads to fights and wars. And on another note- how dare you tell somebody from another religon that their "god/gods" are wrong and sinfull. That's sickening. Those people grew up learning about their own religon as you did and they are wrong? Maybe they are, maybe they aren't. And since nobody knows, nobody has the right to say who is right or wrong.

All in all, your beliefs aren't something you can prove or disprove. It's what you feel and believe. If people don't believe, that's fine. If you want to, thats fine to.

BTW, leave my pink invisible unicorn [pony? w/e] alone. :P

prepares for flamage

Tatterdemalion

07-19-2008, 02:19 AM

Ah, the only person who makes any sense around this insane asylum (not intended as a disrespect to other users of this forum, as the "insane asylum" is the discussion of the existence of a diety, called so because the entire thing is insane, yet does not necessarily reflect the qualities of those who participate in this discussion)

Although I disagree that there's anything wrong with organized religion, so long as we separate the belief from the institution. That is, the beliefs themselves have done nothing wrong with them, it's the institutions which hold authority in the organization which are mostly to blame...then there's the matter of spirituality vs. dogma, and the like.

And as for why there has to be proving or disproving, that's simple. The Christians (not all of them but some of them) start off by saying that their religion is absolute, and start trying to force their beliefs on others on religious grounds. Now, this makes a lot of people very angry, so the Atheists respond by refuting a bunch of Christian dogma. Then more Christians join on, and start slinging their religion back at the atheists. Then the atheists respond by asserting that God doesn't exist, as a strike back against the Christians, although they end up pelting the other various organized religions of the world in the process. And as time goes on the strange argument goes back and forth, constantly, unchanging and unending.

ZhouYu

07-19-2008, 01:31 PM

"Religon is a belief right? So why are people trying to prove/disprove it? "

Exactly

agrajagthetesty

07-19-2008, 05:24 PM

Religon is a belief right? So why are people trying to prove/disprove it?
Because it claims to know all the answers. Because some people believe you cannot be moral without it. Because some people use it as a reference when deciding how to live. Because some people are marginalized because of it. Because it is being brought into politics in certain countries. Because it entirely dictates the social code in other countries. Because wars have been started over it. Because some people will only marry within their religion. Because some people will indoctrinate their children into their religion. As it is so important to so many people, I think it might be an idea to try and discover how much truth there is in it.

But maybe that's just me.

RedRook

07-19-2008, 09:34 PM

well, the truth is completely arbitrary. The truth is that there is no reason or way to prove or disprove a belief. just like your belief being that religion can be baseless, is still a belief. It really doesn't matter what you believe because even if it's not some kind of religious belief (which ultimately is just the same as a political belief) people will do all of those things regardless. They will dice one another up in little groups and turn against one another for the simple fact of being human. There is no verifiable truth behind any belief or belief structure because everything you believe is entirely subjective and a part of your own little world.

Everyone claims to know all the answers, everyone believes they're right, even if they claim to be wrong. Thats just the way people are. We are a race of liars deceiving ourselves into thinking what we believe matters to everyone else, when really the only person it matters to is you.

Ammeterasu77

07-19-2008, 10:03 PM

But the more people try to prove/disprove religons, the more fights and wars they'll be. And when it comes down to it, nobody will ever know the truth until the end has come for them [if they are lucky enough there].

As for it dictating social code of other countries, this is true. BUT, the way in which people live [not including religous beliefs] dictates how somebody else lives in another country.

For those who choose religon and live by it- thats their choice. They choose to follow it. If they want to pull morals from religon and make decisions based on religous beliefs- let them. If somebody doesn't believe in anything- don't push them.

"People will marry within their religon." Don't forget they'll also marry within there race as well. And so what if they marry within their religon? Perhaps those two feel a connect through their beliefs. Same may go for those who share no belief. Won't some [keyword "some"] Athiests marry those who are Athiests because they want somebody with the same views and beliefs as them [yes, a disbelief can be a belief if you look at it that way]. In fact, isn't that why we choose the people we do? Because of shared views in general [or at least part of the reason why we choose]?

@Tatter- Thank you. And yes, I dislike how "biblepushers" and "nonbelievers" fight like cats and dogs. Again, both sides try to prove they are right and what comes out of it? Nothing but meaningless bickering.

Tatterdemalion

07-19-2008, 11:52 PM

Well, I have to disagree there. I think that in order to properly look at religion you need to break it up into its component groups. Religion is both a social phenomenon, a political tool, and a philosophical belief.

We can discuss religion as any of these three things (for example, on the political side we can discuss whether there should be a separation of church and state, or on the philosophical side we can discuss whether or not there is a God), but we can''t use an argument specific to one facet as evidence, reason, or impetus for another (for example, you can't use wars based on religion to discuss religion's philosophical merit, because one has no bearing on the other).

So yes, religion does have certain political significance, but that significance only warrants discussion of the use of religion as a political philosophy. However, all of the holy wars in the world still don't amount to an argument for the discussion of religion as a spiritual, or personal philosophy, because they have no spiritual significance, and are not inluenced by the spiritual or personal philosophy of religion. So if the discussion were about politics, or religion in politics, then by all means we should and could discuss it. But to tell you the truth, politics has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not God exists.

Also, I thionk it's ironic (not you, agrajag, but some people), criticize religion for leading people to be intolerant of other philosophical and religious beliefs, then at the same time criticize religious people for their philosophical and religious beliefs. Don't you think that's ironic?

agrajagthetesty

07-20-2008, 08:20 AM

But the more people try to prove/disprove religons, the more fights and wars they'll be. And when it comes down to it, nobody will ever know the truth until the end has come for them [if they are lucky enough there].
This is realistic, but theoretically it is possible to prove/disprove religion, in which case, in an ideal world, the conflict would go away because enough evidence exists for everyone to see the truth. Of course, this probably won't ever happen, as it's not the way things work. But then, poverty probably won't ever disappear. Does that mean we shouldn't try?As for it dictating social code of other countries, this is true. BUT, the way in which people live [not including religous beliefs] dictates how somebody else lives in another country.
Yes, there are other factors which influence the way people behave, but other moral codes have usually come about through logical thinking. Not to mention how all other codes of living are open to debate. Why can't religion be discussed and tested for viability in the same way?Don't forget they'll also marry within there race as well. And so what if they marry within their religon? Perhaps those two feel a connect through their beliefs.
First of all, a race will tend to have a religion that goes with it, just as countries have an "official" religion. However, I think that actively seeking to marry within your religion and/or race is narrow-minded. If the various cultures do not mix, alienation will continue. Also, there is the question of children. Children are born into a race. They are not born into a religion in the same way. Children do not automatically adopt the religion of their parents. They have to be indoctrinated, whether through Sunday School, visits to temples, reading the holy book or the horrors of Bible camps. And yes, people will feel attracted towards those of similar beliefs. This is a natural response, aimed at reducing conflict, and extends to political viewpoints and such things as well. But children are unlikely to be indoctrinated into a certain political standpoint- at least, not as actively.A disbelief can be a belief if you look at it that way.
Oh, no. Ok- I don't believe in flying pigs, fairies, Father Christmas, the Easter Bunny, Zeus or Bigfoot. But there are some people who do, and as these things cannot be disproved, my disbelief must count as a belief.We can discuss religion as any of these three things (for example, on the political side we can discuss whether there should be a separation of church and state, or on the philosophical side we can discuss whether or not there is a God), but we can''t use an argument specific to one facet as evidence, reason, or impetus for another (for example, you can't use wars based on religion to discuss religion's philosophical merit, because one has no bearing on the other).
True enough, when the discussion concerns purely one aspect of religion. However, when dealing with the bigger questions of overall merit (e.g. "Is the damage caused by religious wars balanced out by the hope it brings to people?") you have to consider arguments from all sides. Just as Physics and Chemistry sometimes overlap, so do the different aspects of religion. It all comes from the same source. It just has such a wide spread of influence that it is easier to divide it up.However, all of the holy wars in the world still don't amount to an argument for the discussion of religion as a spiritual, or personal philosophy.
I would argue that they do, actually. If wars can truly be started over purely religious matters, doesn't it say something about the dogma of the religions in question, and hasn't the philosophy of the religions had an effect on the soldiers when they decided to go and fight?But to tell you the truth, politics has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not God exists.
Agreed. But my argument was that religion affects politics, as it affects almost every aspect of our lives, and therefore I personally would like to know why it has such power and whether it is deserving of it.Also, I thionk it's ironic (not you, agrajag, but some people), criticize religion for leading people to be intolerant of other philosophical and religious beliefs, then at the same time criticize religious people for their philosophical and religious beliefs. Don't you think that's ironic?
It is indeed. It's very hard for people to be truly tolerant.

killshot

07-20-2008, 04:09 PM

Also, I thionk it's ironic (not you, agrajag, but some people), criticize religion for leading people to be intolerant of other philosophical and religious beliefs, then at the same time criticize religious people for their philosophical and religious beliefs. Don't you think that's ironic?
There are a number of things that must be tolerated. Beliefs are not one of them. The whole idea that beliefs instantly need to be treated with respect is nonsense. There are people who believe that whites are superior to all other races. Should their beliefs be tolerated? The same logic applies to the belief of christianity. Christians shouldn't expect automatic respect just because of their "faith." Respect is something that needs to be earned on an individual level. Beliefs do not become more credible just because people hold them.

MrsSallyBakura

07-20-2008, 04:21 PM

Because it claims to know all the answers.
Actually, even though some Christians out there like to believe that they know all the answers, Christianity itself doesn't claim to know all the answers. The Bible/Catholic Catechism is only a small fraction of truth and we won't know all the answers until we go to Heaven. That's what I was raised to believe.

This goes back to my post about the Old Testament God (which people seem to have completely ignored) not revealing forgiveness until Jesus came. There's still more for us to learn but that won't happen until we are ready (which will either happen when we die or until the second coming).

That is the core Christian belief; sad shame extremists claim otherwise.

agrajagthetesty

07-20-2008, 05:23 PM

Actually, even though some Christians out there like to believe that they know all the answers, Christianity itself doesn't claim to know all the answers.
It's certainly pretty unwilling to examine itself, and extremely resistant to the idea of change and growth. Didn't the Vatican only officially admit that the Earth went around the Sun in 1992? It's also so convinced it's right that the Bible orders believers to kill any member of their family that follows another religion. That's a lot of commitment for something that doesn't have all the answers.This goes back to my post about the Old Testament God (which people seem to have completely ignored) not revealing forgiveness until Jesus came.
Remind me why he did this. If God can do anything, and he and Jesus are the same person anyway, why did he have to wait? Why not reveal forgiveness right at the start?

ZhouYu

07-20-2008, 06:39 PM

I just love the way that many religions are based on the old testament and in it we are told things that really doesn't agree with the whole kind image of a God.

Deuteronomy 25: 11-12

�If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by the private parts, you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity.�

Hmm, to me sounds a bit much

Jeremiah 50:21-22

"Go up, my warriors, against the land of Merathaim and against the people of Pekod. Yes, march against Babylon, the land of rebels, a land that I will judge! Pursue, kill, and completely destroy them, as I have commanded you," says the LORD. "Let the battle cry be heard in the land, a shout of great destruction".

Whatever happened to 'Thou shall not kill'?

1 Kings 20:35-36

Meanwhile, the LORD instructed one of the group of prophets to say to another man, "Strike me!" But the man refused to strike the prophet. Then the prophet told him, "Because you have not obeyed the voice of the LORD, a lion will kill you as soon as you leave me." And sure enough, when he had gone, a lion attacked and killed him.

This is coming from a book that people are living by. Does anyone else here see a problem with this? Did God just do a 180 or something?

Somehow I can no longer follow my own religion as even the religion doesn't agree with itself

darkarcher

07-20-2008, 08:11 PM

Didn't the Vatican only officially admit that the Earth went around the Sun in 1992?
Please do not make up information to make a point.It's also so convinced it's right that the Bible orders believers to kill any member of their family that follows another religion.
That's Islam, not Christianity...and very radical Islam at that.

killshot

07-20-2008, 08:21 PM

Vatican Admits Galileo Correct
by Los Angeles times
Oct 31, 1992

VATICAN CITY -- It's official: The Earth revolves around the sun, even for the Vatican.

The Roman Catholic Church has admitted erring these past 359 years in formally condemning Galileo Galilei for entertaining scientific truths it long denounced as anti-scriptural heresy.

Pope John Paul II himself turned up Saturday...
It seems agrajagthetesty also fabricated this article from the Los Angeles Times to help prove a point. I can't stand it when people just make things up on the spot.

darkarcher

07-20-2008, 08:22 PM

Very well, I apologize. That was my mistake as I had not known about it previously.

Ammeterasu77

07-21-2008, 12:00 AM

The only thing I'm going to comment on is your reply to the Disbelief can be a belief (since if I respond to any other arguement, I feel that we'll just continue this pointless cycle). Your response seemed rather, childish. What I meant was, you can easily say in a discussion about god, "My belief is that god DOESN'T exist." You believe he doesn't exist- which means you have a disbelief in god. "I believe that Father Christmas DOESN'T exist" I have a disbelief in Father Christmas. The only reason I added that was because I feel that an athiests have a belief. And that belief is that god doesn't exist. It was just a different way of saying "Athiests don't believe in god".

But ANYWAY, I think I will respond to all your replies with this. The point I'm making is that if you try to prove or disprove a single religon or religon in general- your taking away people's belief. Sure, we can try and prove or disprove it- to give people facts (and trust me, I do love me some facts) but some people are simply satisfied with what they believe in their heart. And you have to know, that even if their was proof- people would be too stubborn to admit it.

And I understand what you are saying- without religon, there would probably be less wars (unless there was something else to fight about- always possible with human kind). And believe me, I'll be the first to admit I hate those who push religon on me. I hate people telling me that they're religon is right and everyone else is wrong. That I should act a certain way because it tells me too. But you know what? Nobody can ever change how you really feel. Only you choose when to change how you feel.

And in case your thinking it- I'm not too into religon personally. I'll leave details out- but if you saw my original post, I said that I hate organized religon. There's more to it but I'm not going to state what I think because it could offend other people.

Well, ok maybe I'll tell a little bit
@Zhouyu: Don't get me started on that old testament shit! I could really go off about how messed up it is! But I won't. Nor will I get into a discussion about the bible because that will just lead into fights. Can we say Penn & Teller's: Bullshit? lol Ok I'll stop now, seriously.

agrajagthetesty

07-21-2008, 03:18 AM

That's Islam, not Christianity...and very radical Islam at that.
Is the Old Testament not part of the Bible?You believe he doesn't exist- which means you have a disbelief in god.
This is just semantics, but there are atheists who don't claim to "believe there is no God", they just "don't believe there is a God". This is largely irrelevant, I admit- I just think that as atheism doesn't come with a set of rules for living, it can't be considered a belief system. And yes, my reply was rather childish, and I apologise.Sure, we can try and prove or disprove it- to give people facts (and trust me, I do love me some facts) but some people are simply satisfied with what they believe in their heart. And you have to know, that even if their was proof- people would be too stubborn to admit it.
Yes, this is true. However, for the reasons I have already given, and because I consider debate important, I think it's worth having these discussions all the same. Not necessarily to try to prove or disprove, but simply to share opinions and, more importantly, the reasons we hold those opinions. That's why I'm still on this thread, even though we can't be said to have made any "progress".

@killshot: Thank you for finding a source for me. I got my information from a different news site, but it seems that the event got quite a lot of publicity.

killshot

07-21-2008, 09:31 AM

Disbelief can be a belief...
All that is required to be an atheist is a lack of belief in a god or gods. In a sense, everyone is an atheist in regards to some god or another. I doubt you would call disbelief in Zues a belief of its own. The word "atheist" implys a lack of belief and has no other prerequisites. Other qualities such as skepticism are often associated with atheists, but these qualities do not apply to atheism in general. I have met atheists who believe in things just as superstitious as a god, such as ghosts and spirits. Simply put, atheism is not a belief of its own.The point I'm making is that if you try to prove or disprove a single religon or religon in general- your taking away people's belief.
I can't speak for everyone, but I have no intention of changing anyone's mind. I talk about religion because it's fun. In almost every debate I have been in there has always been someone who sits on the fence and preaches that debating religion is pointless. It's not pointless if the people debating are enjoying the disscusion.

ChaosVincent1

07-21-2008, 10:30 AM

They have satelite proof of the Red Sea splitting. It was in a gulf that was actually part of the Red Sea where they crossed. A mile-deep crossing point was discovered with human and horse skeletons. Also, there IS a satellite pic of Noah's Ark. Now, if only the Turkish government would let us go dig it out of the ice.

NMPTILU

07-21-2008, 12:32 PM

Source?

Ammeterasu77

07-21-2008, 10:53 PM

As long as everyone is enjoying it, then yes. Most discussions I've had with people [not this thread- outside of this] about religon were pushing it on me. Actually, I had MY OWN religon pushed on me! Because I believe there is no right or wrong religon [again, how can a person from one religon say they are right when the other person with a different religon believes they are right ect ect...], I got yelled at saying, "How can you be a _____ and say that?!" Then a whole lot of statements about blastphamy and shit was said. Or even when Athiests [some- not all], try to get you to believe nothing at all. Not even ghosts or anything.

So yea, finding an enjoyable discussion about the topic is hard.

I just give up on the disbelif is a belief statement. It was just different wording. -_-' lol Dropping it..... now.

MrsSallyBakura

07-22-2008, 11:17 AM

Remind me why he did this. If God can do anything, and he and Jesus are the same person anyway, why did he have to wait? Why not reveal forgiveness right at the start?
I think I posted something from the Catechism either in this topic or the other religion topic, but my quote was about how God created the world to be a journey, a story. He didn't want everything perfect right away, just like any human author doesn't want anything to be perfect right away in his/her own story.
The way authors develop their characters through suffering is very much similar to how we develop ourselves through suffering as well. It's a necessary part of life; do you think you would ever mature if you never suffered?
Also authors make many of their characters either out of themselves or based on people they know, so that also relates to how God made people in His image and likeness.
I could go on forever with this author/God analogy but I'll stop here.

@Ammeterasu: I believe that all religions have at least some truth in them, I just think Christianity has the most truth. It's good to meditate, it's good to have something spiritual instead of material to be the center of your world, etc, so there's truth in all that.
Though I find it interesting... as far as being taught about other religions goes, loving one another isn't mentioned. I was being taught about Hinduism during one of my classes last semester and a lot of their values are absolutely wonderful and all, but I thought to myself, "What's missing?" and that's when it hit me. There is no other religion where their own God comes down to Earth and saves people from damnation (and I honestly don't believe people don't go to Hell unless they outright say they want to go there), and there is no other religion where there are songs about how the people in that religion are about love.

Unfortunately, extremists make atheists want to sing, "And we'll know they are Christians by their hate, by their hate..." It breaks my heart, really. I think Christianity as a whole is getting better at being known for love but at the same time it's the hate that gets around. :/
If God didn't want us to be more open-minded, then Jesus wouldn't have had any followers. Given the culture at the time where the Pharasses ruled all and refused to accept Jesus because He was different from their expectations, it had to take open-mindedness on the Apostles' parts in order to accept him.

agrajagthetesty

07-22-2008, 11:36 AM

God created the world to be a journey, a story. He didn't want everything perfect right away, just like any human author doesn't want anything to be perfect right away in his/her own story.
The differences being that authors do this so that their stories will be more interesting and sympathetic which means that they will sell better, and that authors don't love their characters, and it therefore makes sense that they would cause them to suffer, especially as fictional characters don't have real feelings.

This goes inevitably back to the whole issue of God's eternal love, which we've already discussed endlessly without me going through any sort of epiphany explaining why someone would allow those they love to suffer. (Yes, suffering causes growth, but personally I don't care as much about whether my loved ones will grow as I do about their happiness.) I think that quite frankly I just don't understand the Christian view on this, in much the same way as I don't understand the concept of the Trinity. I've tried my best, but it hasn't clicked so far.

JesusRocks

07-22-2008, 04:59 PM

Religion is a plague upon mankind...

BoxOfFun

07-24-2008, 11:22 AM

agrajagthetesty, God never wanted there to be any suffering. Haven't you heard the story of the G arden of Eden?God made Adam, then he made Eve, then the Devil came along and spoiled it all.

killshot

07-24-2008, 11:19 PM

God made the devil. God knew what would happen if he made the devil and he made him anyway. Everything the devil does is God's fault.

AsianKid013

07-25-2008, 12:43 AM

wrong! the devil was originally one of god's angels but then turned bad

killshot

07-25-2008, 02:18 PM

Doesn't matter. If God knows the future, then he would know the outcome of creating Lucifer from the beginning. This is the age old question of God's benevolence versus his omnipotence. Epicurus summed up this question with this quote:Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

JesusRocks

07-25-2008, 07:27 PM

God is both able, and willing... so, where does evil come from?

Have you ever done something evil?
Why did you do it?
Did God, make you do it or did you choose to do it?
Why did God not stop you from doing it?... were you waiting for him to stop you, or were you ignoring him/not thinking about God at all?
If you were ignoring/not thinking about him at all, then the evil is your fault entirely... you acted alone...
If you were waiting for him to stop you, then why did you then go on to carry out the evil in the first place since you obviously knew it was wrong? In this case your evil is greater...

If you thought it was right, how did you come to that conclusion?
If you thought that the ends justified the means, then do you also think that torture is a justified technique for extracting a confession from someone?
If you thought the victim(s) deserved it, then, what do you deserve?
If you thought "I just wanted to" or "I was bored", does that mean you then put foreward justification for, for example, a gang of kids kicking a defenceless man to death because they were "bored"?

God is indeed willing and able, but that would involve taking away our choice to do wrong or to do right... as you can hopefully see, if you do something evil it is not because God "didn't stop you", it is because you chose to... If God took away our choice to do wrong or right, we would then lose the capacity to love, because real love comes from choice. For Example: Do you hold a grudge against a person when they hurt you? or do you forgive them?
If we could only ever forgive, it would be done by force of nature, rather than by strength of will...

Same goes for loving God. He wants us to love him, and in order to properly do that, it must not be forced by instinct, otherwise it is hollow...

The presence of both evil and good gives us proper choice. We succeed, we fail, we rise up and we fall, sometimes within a matter of minutes of each other... Which is why it is a good thing that our "good deeds" do not get us into heaven, otherwise no-one could ever go... Some evil is a trial by fire, a challenge to hold on even in adverse circumstances... we live in a world that is full of evil things and deeds and also the people who choose to do them, bad things will inevitably happen.

If you reject God or even the very concept of his existence, how can you then possibly expect His protection when bad things happen?
It's a complete double-standard... people expect God to protect them and rid the world of evil and in return they ignore Him completely and do not even try to rid themselves of evil, and then when what they want does not happen, they deny He exists because of it.

And all of us are guilty of this or something similar in some way or another

At the end, the people who are in heaven will be in perfection, not because God got rid of their choice to do good or evil, and not even because they were "good people", but because they made the choice to trust God, and God removed their evil from their records by taking the consequences for them.

Another double-standard which we are all guilty of is expecting, for example, a murderer to get his "just desserts", but then arguing that we should not also be held accountable for the things we have done... should we not also get our just desserts, our comeuppance?
And if we think we are not as "bad" as another person, we are then using our own biased standards of what "good" is... "I'm good, I only ever slapped someone in the face; whereas he stabbed someone in the leg, he's much more evil than me!"

God's standard acts as the objective viewpoint... Just like a Statute or Common Law principle act as objective measures in human legal systems...
Example:
"Whosoever shall unlawfully and maliciously wound or inflict any grievous bodily harm upon any other person, either with or without any weapon or instrument, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor" - s.20 Offences Against the Person Act 1861

If someone breaches this Law, they cannot turn around and say "Well, I'm generally a good person and hey, at least I didn't commit Statutory Rape... so I don't think I should go to prison" - That's just not going to work, you breached that law, and the punishment for breaching that law is a maximum of 5 years imprisonment.

- However there are defences which can either negate liability, or make sentencing less harsh... and, bringing the point back round to God, humanity's defence is Jesus, and needless to say, he's the only defence there is and the only defence that is effective at negating our liability...

killshot

07-25-2008, 11:03 PM

Your response is all well and good, but it operates under the assumption that people have committed a crime. What about innocent children who have never had the opportunity to sin? Evil things happen at the same rate for all people, regardless of their innocence. I hear a lot of christians tell me that everyone is guilty because of the original sin. If you believe this to be true, then explain to me why people are still being punished for something that happened before they were born. Does it make sense to arrest someone for a crime committed by their grandparents? Why are we being punished for something we have no control over?

In the story of Job, God kills all of Job's animals and servants just to win a bet with the devil. Does this sound like the behavior of a kind ruler? I know the bible talks about servants like they were cattle, but shouldn't God know better? There are several verses in the bible that depict God to be a ruthless killer. If he can't even follow his own rules, then why should he expect us to?

I have a couple things to say about Jesus being our defense.
1. It makes no sense for God to send his son (which is actually himself) to save the world from the evil that he himself created.

2. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the bible makes no mention of hell until Jesus shows up. Its almost as if one cannot exist without the other. If Jesus is both the poison and the antidote, wouldn't we be just as well off without him?

Tatterdemalion

07-26-2008, 12:49 AM

Although according to some major world religions (*cough*, Judaism, *cough*) there is no Devil. Just thought I'd bring that up.

JesusRocks

07-26-2008, 01:16 PM

Here's a story to illustrate the concept of the fall:
Intended to respond the the first paragraph, and answer question 1 and the second part of question 2

A group of people were once living in a beautiful garden on the top of a cliff, the owner gave them one single rule "Stay away from the edge or you'll fall off". The Enemy came along and said to them "pfft! you won't fall off!", so the group of people go to the edge of the cliff and, inevitably, they fall off, the Enemy along with them.

They manage to survive, but they are in what is essentially a wasteland. They look at the cliff-face and it is a sheer wall, they cannot scale it, and they have nothing around them to help them get back up. The owner looks down and asks them "Why did you disobey me?". They shout back up, "Your enemy decieved us, why did you allow him in your garden?". The owner shouts back, "You deserve to be able to choose whether or not to disobey me, you should have trusted that I know what I'm talking about, but don't worry, I don't intend to leave you down there forever". In the meantime, the people started families and the children were born in the wasteland, but when they were old enough, even they could not scale the cliff-face. Eventually the owner said, "Right, your time-out is over, I'm going to send down a ladder so you can come back up! ... Later on I will be reshaping my land, and I will get rid of this cliff, so I would very much like it if you guys came back up before that happens, until that time comes I'll leave the ladder here for you"

People climbed the ladder and got back up, but some remained, "I think it's much nicer down here thankyouverymuch!", "Yeah who needs your garden!?"... and so people kept on staying down there, even though the ladder stayed ready to bring them back up, because they were still being decieved by the Enemy who kept telling them that the garden was the real wasteland. Sometimes the owner would come down and collect the very young children who were dying to take them back up to the garden so they could survive, since there wasn't much food down in the wasteland (there never had been). Many people died down there, and the owner of the garden kept calling to them to come back up, "The ladder is always here, come back up and you won't die of hunger!", but they refused out of stubbornness and resentfulness, and died.

All throughout this, the owner threw down food to those who asked him for some, he even threw some down to the people who didn't want any, but they still turned their backs and refused to eat the food he threw down...
Eventually the time had come to reshape the owners land, which involved getting rid of the cliff, and flattening the land out. The people who had come up throughout the course of this ordeal were the only ones left alive by this time, and the owner had the sad task of bringing the bodies of the dead back up to the garden to get them out of the way. When the land was reshaped into a rolling hill rather than a sheer cliff, the owner buried the dead. The many who had climbed the ladder lived with the owner happily and healthily in the new garden.
__________________________________________________ ___________________
This attempts to answer the rest of your post

Job deals primarily with human response to suffering. Some continue to trust God when they suffer, and some curse Him. Many of the Jewish scolars believe the story of Job to be a kind of mega-parable (mega due to it's size). It talks at great length also about God's surpremacy and sovereignty...
@Tatterdemalion: the story of Job itself shows that Judaism holds belief in Satan. The word Satan is Hebrew, meaning "Enemy"... this is the same Satan in which Christians also believe.

The use of the word Hell, the Aramaic being Gehenna, meaning the Valley of Hinnom, is not limited to the New Testament. The Valley of Hinnom is a place in Israel described in the Old Testament, and by Jesus' time, this place was used for throwing rubbish, dead bodies of criminals and all manner of other nasty things into, like a Landfill site, except without the burying part. Jesus used the Hinnom Valley as an analogy to describe the Old Testament concepts of "Sheol" or "The Grave"... the word "Hell" itself is not used in the Old Testament, because this particular word did not exist back then ("Hell" as a word actually comes from waaaaaay after Jesus' time). "Gehenna" on the other hand was used commonly in New Testament times, because this is what the Valley of Hinnom came to be known colloquially, most likely due to Roman occupation and their usage of the Valley... It was not always known as such in Old Testament times (back then it was a settlement).

Although the use of "Gehenna" as being the Lake of Fire at the Last Judgement is a New Testament concept... but you have to remember that Jesus and his followers, and most of the early church at the time were Jewish, and this could well have been a concept from the Jewish oral tratition...

killshot

07-26-2008, 03:55 PM

@ Tatterdamalion: I know that not all religions have a devil figure (in fact I think most don't), but I was responding to someone who mentioned the devil earlier.

@ JesusRocks:

If your story is supposed to explain why God allows people to make bad choices, it doesn't take into account that the garden owner didn't create the people living in the garden. The owner has no control over the will of the people so he can't be blamed for their actions. God on the other hand, created the people in his garden with the knowledge that they will be deceived by the devil. This is the most vital part of the argument so I will say it again. God, who has knowledge of the future, created humans in such a way that they had no choice but to be deceived by the devil. The actions of Adam and Eve were predetermined by God and there was nothing they could do to change this. If a creator knows the future and designs a person, then that person can only follow the path the creator gave them. There is no free will involved with an omnipotent creator. I know that the Christian view is that people have to have free will to choose God, but if God already knows the future then he knows if someone chooses him or not. If God already knows someone will not choose to follow him, then the only reason for God to have even made that person in the first place is to send them to hell.

I have a question that I have never received a proper answer to. What happens to a person who has never heard of Jesus when they die? This isn't just rhetorical, I seriously want to know the answer.

darkarcher

07-26-2008, 04:12 PM

I have a question that I have never received a proper answer to. What happens to a person who has never heard of Jesus when they die? This isn't just rhetorical, I seriously want to know the answer.
Romans states that people who have not heard the Gospel directly still have evidence of God. Those who look hard enough can find God for themselves, even without the Gospel. In this sense, everyone still has the choice, and there are still the unfortunate side effects of the wrong one.

Grantsnake

07-26-2008, 05:39 PM

nut you cant prove does either
i tell you what pisses me off is you get a load of religous people coming to your door a saying 'believe what i belive or you'll suffer for the rest of eternity' but you dont get any atheist coming to your door going 'stop believeing in shit' (joke stolen from mock the week)

JesusRocks

07-26-2008, 06:56 PM

I never said that the owner of the garden didn't create the people... This is what you would call a parable...

In this parable which I admittedly made up on the spot... Silence on whether the owner created the people doesn't mean he didn't create the people... after all in the creation story, God was the owner of Eden...
But I will explain the point of this parable:
- The owner is God, the people are His creation.
- The Owner in the story clearly knew that the people would be decieved by his Enemy, who of course is Satan.

- The Owner knew all the possible choices that the people might make, and he knew their limits and what persuades them... We need to re-evaluate our perception of what it means to be omniscient, in balance with a God who gave us free choice... did God surrender any omniscience in order to give us negative freedom? (which says that freedom is when we are not constrained by anything or anyone) Or did he maintain his omniscience in order that we could have positive freedom? (which says paradoxically that true freedom is playing within a set limit, in order that we can live to the fullest possible enjoyment)

- God did not cause them to be decieved, he knew they would be and allowed them to be. There is a clear difference between knowing and causing.
- The ladder, pretty obviously is Jesus. He will remain as our bridge between earth and heaven until everything is re-made.

- My point about the the owner collecting the dying children was the answer to your question about what happens to children who have not had the chance to sin. God wants human beings to be involved in His work of saving mankind, He wants to work with us and through us. However, God does not need us to accomplish the work, He is more than capable of doing it Himself, he does collect people Himself. Just as He collected the dead who came before Jesus from Hell, so He can collect infants and babies who know absolutely nothing of the Law because they never got the chance to hear it. The Bible says that for those who hear the news of Jesus, and hear the words of the Law, ignorance of the Law can never be an excuse on the day of judgment - And since it is through the Law that people are made aware of sin, this implies that true ignorance of it can excuse. But, like Paul asks, does this mean that we would be better off without the Law? or that the Law is evil? absolutely not. The Law was given that we should be aware of the evil we do, and thereby to stop doing it. Just like the Laws of society are made known to people in order that they do not inadvertantly transgress them, so that we can abide by them and have positive freedom.

- The people who died in the wasteland are the people in who died in sin, they remained so until God brought both the living and the dead together in garden. He buried the dead. Those who God judges as guilty of sin on the day of judgment are already dead (even the ones physically living), The Owner has the sad job of placing the dead in the only place they can possibly go: the grave. Just like on Judgment day, God has the sad job of placing those guilty of sin in the only place they can possibly go to: hell.
God can break His own laws, but He chooses to place himself under them. God is truly and completely free, and yet he chooses to abide by His own Law. Does that mean He is not free? No, God is much more free by abiding by His own Law, which also makes Him much more just as well.

- The food the owner threw down were the signs of God's prescence. People who ate the food were the ones who accepted God's presence. Many of them climbed the ladder, some still chose to remain, thinking that seeing these signs was enough. Some people just ignored the food altogether, or tried to say to themselves that the food was rotten.

killshot

07-26-2008, 10:43 PM

God did not cause them to be decieved, he knew they would be and allowed them to be. There is a clear difference between knowing and causing.
This would be true if you were talking about anyone else but God. If someone could see the future, this doesn't mean they can change it. However, God not only can see the future, but he created the people and events that would shape that future. If God did indeed create humans, then they have no choice but to act within the limits they were given. God may not have created individual personalities, but he did create the environment that causes those personalities develop. In this regard, God shapes the wills of all people thus eliminating free will. And since it is through the Law that people are made aware of sin, this implies that true ignorance of it can excuse.
Lets say I gave you an apple. After you eat it, I then tell you that the apple was poison. However, you don't have to worry about dieing because as long as you keep eating the poison apples they won't kill you. So let me ask you this, would you rather keep eating the apples for the rest of your life, or would you prefer I never gave you an apple in the first place?

In your definitions of positive and negative freedom, the word freedom is used in different ways. You say negative freedom is living with no restrictions and then go on to say true freedom can only be experienced through restriction. However your definition of true freedom is more of a freedom from choice which I would argue is not freedom at all. Freedom does not imply happiness. It is only the concept of living without restrictions and being able to choose.

JesusRocks

07-27-2008, 12:17 PM

Actually my definitions of Positive and Negative freedom come from the book Constitutional and Administrative Law, 6th Edition by John Alder...

Negative freedom is freedom without any laws, rules or restrictions... i.e. to be left alone
Positive freedom is freedom that is guided by rules and laws. For example, trying to play a game of football without any of the rules ends up being chaotic and confusing. It is enjoyed to it's fullest extent when the rules are implemented and enforced.

I think that when you are saying free will or free choice, you're probably thinking along the lines of Negative Freedom - nothing restricts it. Whereas I personally think that free will is more of the Positive Freedom kind...

Most lawyers and legal theorists agree that Positive Freedom is the most "free" form of "freedom"... Although government by this principle does carry a risk of authoritarianism, it is generally regarded as the best approach... and it is the approach that democratic systems like the UK and the USA which claim to be "free countries" use. Negative Freedom is seen by legal theorists to be impractical and selfish.
To sum up, God endorses Positive Freedom, and the Rule of Law... Satan, having rebelled against God and His system, endorses Negative Freedom and Anarchy - rule by none.

Positive Freedom is not a freedom from choice, but, in the words of John Alder, "The ability to choose reason to excercise choice".

Also, God gave the law so that people would realise they were doing things wrong and would then stop doing things wrong... Yes, ignorance of it may have meant that we wouldn't be guilty of sin, but essentially running around like headless chickens is not really the best way to live... Ergo, the Law, to guide our freedom and focus our choices...

Spoofs3

07-27-2008, 07:35 PM

You have pointed out that god has given Law down to guide our freedom and focus our choices, but the earliest Form of law in the bible is the ten commandments, This was given during mosus's time, But before that there was no law, But still people could live, and many civilisations were living without this law but were still not doing it,
Even before this Law came down I could of had a choice to kill, What doi I do?, i can kill so I must kill? Before this law people were not killing everyone because they could, Otherwise we would all be dead.
We would not be Running around like headless chickens without the Law, We have always had the knowlegde to guide our freedom and focus on our choices

YG117

07-27-2008, 08:01 PM

Well, I have to say that it's not a matter of whether God exists or not. It's one simple word. Faith.

As a Catholic, I don't claim that God is real, I have faith. I believe in God, and that's all that matters. Sure, it would be nice if everyone believed in him, but God gave us all a special gift, and it's called free will. an that's the reason why not everyone believes in him. Because we live by our will.
Having faith in God makes it stronger, and helps us to make the right decisions.

Spoofs3

07-28-2008, 07:05 AM

Having faith in god helps us make the right decisions???
And those who don't believe in god are more likely to make the wrong decisions?
I don't think so, Having faith has nothing to do with making the right decisions, You should still know what is right and what is wrong even without the pull of God.
(I believe in God just saying)

YG117

07-29-2008, 08:04 PM

first of all, I never said that you can only make good decisions by believing in God, i said it helps.

you could be Atheist and still be a kindhearted person, who makes the right decisions and isn't clouded by temptation and bad thoughts.
I was taught that a sin is only a sin if you know it's wrong and still do it anyway.

plus, what I ment by our faith in God helping us make good decisions is by thinking, if you believe in God, 'wasn't there at least one time where you've prayed to Him, asking him to help guide you down the right path, making the right choices, even if they aren't best suited towards you?'

Bruno

07-31-2008, 08:54 PM

i stopped in believing in god like 10 years ago, and never thought about it before, the trick is that whenever someone think about it, the answer will be clear, God doesn't exist. the world is so complicated and this "silly idea" of someone watching over us for no reason other than some twisted game of judging us, just feels wrong. Don't you see it strange that such great "being" play the game in our rules, why play it first and why hide, and why judge faith, what the hole point of this "mystery" ?
God is just to give hope, maybe some laws in the time when no laws are written, but actually, we're humans ...

Oh crap, i feel stupid, back to episode forums !

Spoofs3

08-01-2008, 02:06 PM

Ever played the sims?
Sometimes you play cruel games, SOmetimes accidents happen, SOmetimes your sims die.
Does that mean you don't exist in the sims eyes?
Just because some things happen in this world why does God have to be seen as someone who plays a "Twisted game?"
Sides why does this sick being play the game in our rules? Because if he created us, Then it is his rules.
I think this needs a futurama quote XDDo too much, People get too Dependant on you, Do too little, they lose faith
He hides because if we could see him whenever we wanted, We would go ask for favors.
And if he grants all of our favors we would give up, Wouldn't work and just keep asking god.

Sides your relgious view is based upon few religions, What you have said presumes
There is only 1 God.
God actually interferes in our world and helps sometimes

There are many more religions with many gods which you could try rekindle your faith in a type of God or just try believing, He doesn't need to help you. He/She could just exist without having to help

darkarcher

08-01-2008, 02:12 PM

There are many more religions with many gods which you could try rekindle your faith in a type of God or just try believing, He doesn't need to help you. He/She could just exist without having to help
"When you've done something right it's like you didn't do anything at all."

As little as I liked Futurama, they actually did very well with that episode.

Spoofs3

08-01-2008, 06:42 PM

You don't like futurama???
Thats weird, Well anyway, That episode teaches us something about god,
He doesn't help us at all, But is a giant black hole creature in the middle of space

JesusRocks

08-01-2008, 08:00 PM

Spoofs, I'm not saying that we ran around like headless chickens in the sense of killing loads of people just because we could, or even that we had absolutely no morals before the Law came... I mean that the Law brings a codified focus of things that are already implanted in our consciences as creatures made in God's image... Yes, murder is an obvious no no... to most people... although to some, it's not so obvious... but there are other things which are deemed morally reprehensible which would not be obvious if the Law did not give something definitive on the subject...

notbrock

08-02-2008, 06:52 AM

i have a question: i know god exist but i want to know does he like to make people suffer for the 'bigger picture'? maybe that's a stupid question but i've asked it and nobody seems to be able to answer me. and also just to put it out there in case it was brought up or will be: there is an after life. there just has to be! what's the point of being created if all it's just suffering we have to endure.

killshot

08-02-2008, 07:57 AM

there is an after life. there just has to be! what's the point of being created if all it's just suffering we have to endure.
This is what we atheists like to call wishful thinking. Just because its hard to imagine we will die someday, doesn't mean that there is another life waiting for us. I would be the happiest man alive if someone were to prove me wrong and proves that an afterlife does exist, but I am not counting on it.

You're asking what the point of living with suffering is? Well, let me let you in on a secret. The meaning of life is that there is no meaning of life. The odds are astronomical that you are even alive so enjoy your fleeting existence.

YG117

08-04-2008, 01:48 PM

God doesn't make anything happen. He lets it happen.You're asking what the point of living with suffering is? Well, let me let you in on a secret. The meaning of life is that there is no meaning of life. The odds are astronomical that you are even alive so enjoy your fleeting existence.
We are all here for a purpose and our existance isn't by accident. I believe that God exists, but even if there is that chance that it's not my God, then there has to be something else. We are too complex to have been created by chance or accident. There is something out there that created us.

I was taught to believe that even though we may suffer, good will come out of it, even if we aren't there to see it.
Do you not feel joy after the suffering of a baby being born?

God gave His only son for us, and His son suffered and died so that He could open the gates of heaven and free us from all sin, making sins forgivable so that one day, we too will be able to be with God and Jesus in eternal happiness.

gigavirus

08-10-2008, 07:56 AM

i have a few ideas on the subject. i do not belive in god but i am open for discussion and i will hear what all have to say.
1. over the many many years that humans exsited there have been so many religons some know to us in moden times some forgoten in time and all of the realy old ones like the Egyptian for example have died out so dose that mean that the religons that exist know willo die out over time.
2. if god existed why are there so many religons would he have not have once made all country united with one religon. thos brings me to think that if a god existed there would be more than one (sorry if this makes no sense but i found it hard to put in to words).
3.another thing is that in the bib;e says that adem and the animals in the garden where the first living things on the planet but what hapend to the dinosaurs and other living things that we have discovered?
that all i can think off rite now so thanks for reading

metagaia

08-10-2008, 08:35 AM

I haven't read through the entire thread (for obvious reasons), but out of interest, has Godwin's Law been realised at any point?

If people really want my 2p (and they don't but I'm bored so I'll give it anyway). All this talk of God is irrelevant. He may exist; I don't know and I stopped caring when I turned about 10. The onus is not on me to disprove God, it is the opposite (drawing back to the original point of the thread, the onus is to prove things like massless teacups, not disprove them). Until it is proven we either assume it doesn't exist, or look for proof. Debating on a forum is neither.

Yes, I am aware of the hypocrisy of this post, but again, I was bored! <img src='/images/emoticons/smiley7.png'>

agrajagthetesty

08-10-2008, 09:28 AM

God doesn't make anything happen. He lets it happen.
You can't honestly mean that. Are you saying that God actually didn't create the world, doesn't save us from our sins, didn't send Jesus to Earth, didn't dictate the Old Testament, didn't flood the Earth, doesn't fight against sin, but simply lets all those things happen? If God was really like that, why would he even need to exist?We are all here for a purpose.
What makes you think so?We are too complex to have been created by chance or accident.
Of course we are. Nobody's claiming that's how we came into existence.Until it is proven we either assume it doesn't exist, or look for proof. Debating on a forum is neither.
Another person telling us this whole conversation is pointless... If we enjoy debating, let us debate, ok? Anyway, we all have different ideas and different reasons for those ideas. By sharing them, aren't we exchanging knowledge and going some way towards finding an answer? At least baby steps take us somewhere.

metagaia

08-10-2008, 10:28 AM

Another person telling us this whole conversation is pointless...
You mean me!? Lil' ol' me!? If we enjoy debating, let us debate, ok? I never said otherwise, I just don't think you'll get anywhere.Anyway, we all have different ideas and different reasons for those ideas. By sharing them, aren't we exchanging knowledge and going some way towards finding an answer?
I thought God was the mother of all optimists, but finding an answer on a internet forum? I take my hat off to you sir (that is if I hat one, it would be a cool hat as well, possibly a trilby)Anyway, we all have different ideas and different reasons for those ideas. By sharing them, aren't we exchanging knowledge and going some way towards finding an answer?
Yes, normally in circles.

agrajagthetesty

08-10-2008, 02:37 PM

Well, I think that sharing ideas is a good thing by itself. I don't care whether we get anywhere, find an ultimate answer or simply go in circles.

YG117

08-11-2008, 03:11 PM

You can't honestly mean that. Are you saying that God actually didn't create the world, doesn't save us from our sins, didn't send Jesus to Earth, didn't dictate the Old Testament, didn't flood the Earth, doesn't fight against sin, but simply lets all those things happen? If God was really like that, why would he even need to exist?
I never said any of that! What I ment was people suffering and dieing today. God doesn't make you die, he doesn't make you get hit by a bus, and he doesn't make a killer go on a rampage, He let's it happen.What makes you think so?
Then why would God create us? For his own ammusement? I don't think so. Of course we are. Nobody's claiming that's how we came into existence.
Read post #224
And plus, there are a lot of people out there who say we were created by chance or accident.I never said otherwise, I just don't think you'll get anywhere.
We personally may not get anywhere, but it gives others a deeper understanding of their religion, and gets us to critically think about ours.Yes, normally in circles.
We may be going in circles, but at least we're going somewhere.

Fenrir502

08-12-2008, 04:02 PM

We are too complex to have been created by chance or accident.
Says who?

I believe in evolution even though I am Christian.
I believe that people were once apes, and then God created 'Adam'- Free will and intelligence, stimulating further evolution. Eden could be explained by a 'Golden Age' where plants flourished. Then of course, the 'Golden Age' ended, and people may have believed they had done something to anger god. Now, as we know, as ice is more compact than water, and by melting causes the sea levels to rise. Living by the then coast of the Meditteranean Sea, would it be so hard to believe that a sudden rising of the water could be percieved as a great flood to purge sin?

And all DNA's base structure is near identical, be it plant or bird or snake, offering evidence that we all evolved from a common ancestor. As does Embryology, but I think I've started waffling, so...

Sorry if I offended anyone.

agrajagthetesty

08-13-2008, 01:04 PM

I never said any of that! What I ment was people suffering and dieing today. God doesn't make you die, he doesn't make you get hit by a bus, and he doesn't make a killer go on a rampage, He let's it happen.
But what you said was that God doesn't make anything happen. If you meant that he doesn't make anything bad happen, then say so.Then why would God create us? For his own ammusement? I don't think so.
You're assuming that we were created by a god. I believe that we weren't. Therefore, I have no reason to think that we are here for a purpose.And plus, there are a lot of people out there who say we were created by chance or accident.
They are probably saying that we came into existence through evolution or natural selection, which has nothing to do with chance.

YG117

08-13-2008, 01:43 PM

Sorry if I offended anyone.
Don't worry about offending anyone, what you believe is what you believe, even if others disagree.You're assuming that we were created by a god.
I don't assume, I believe that we were created by God, not a god.
And if you feel you have no purpose for being here, then whatever!
Just remember that if you ever do something great.They are probably saying that we came into existence through evolution or natural selection, which has nothing to do with chance.
Not what I was reffering to but okay.

Fenrir502

08-13-2008, 03:24 PM

They are probably saying that we came into existence through evolution or natural selection, which has nothing to do with chance.
Ummm, actually, natural selection has alot to do with chance. In fact, it's almost all chance. "It just so happened that one day a bug was born with a resistance to this poison and then a few generations later, BAM! Pesticide kills near everything without this resistance. Survivors reproduce and species is rebuilt with immunities."

Zairak

08-13-2008, 03:31 PM

I don't assume, I believe that we were created by God, not a god.
And if you feel you have no purpose for being here, then whatever!
Just remember that if you ever do something great.
What do you think an assumption is? You say you believe in God. Unless you are going to offer up some evidence for this, then you are operating on nothing more than faith and thus on nothing more than an assumption, however strongly you might believe that it is correct.

agrajagthetesty

08-13-2008, 03:54 PM

And if you feel you have no purpose for being here, then whatever! Just remember that if you ever do something great.
I believe we choose our own purposes, and we aren't born with one already set out for us. But I have to say that I don't see the point in you saying this.It's almost all chance.
Not really. Chance certainly dictates which genes mutate (unless there are certain genes more likely to mutate, but I'm not too sure about this), but chance does not determine what effect those mutations have on the species as a whole. In other words, yes, "It just so happens" that a bug is resistant to a poison (unless it has built up that resistance through exposure, but that isn't passed on genetically), but the fact that in that situation the species will develop an immunity is nothing to do with chance and entirely to do with external circumstances. Chance causes mutations but not development as a species.

YG117

08-13-2008, 09:36 PM

What do you think an assumption is? You say you believe in God. Unless you are going to offer up some evidence for this, then you are operating on nothing more than faith and thus on nothing more than an assumption, however strongly you might believe that it is correct.
My religion is based on faith, and quite frankly, we believe that all you need is faith.
Saying you believe in god and having faith plus doing things to prove your faith in Him are two different things.
Plus, doesn't having faith mean that you don't need proof to tell you it actually exists, that maybe you actually 'believe' in it, and that's all you need.

Plus, assume can also mean 'pretend to have'
I don't 'pretend to have' faith in God, I HAVE faith in HimI believe we choose our own purposes, and we aren't born with one already set out for us. But I have to say that I don't see the point in you saying this.
I ment nothing offensive, but it was made to sound like we are ment to do nothing with ourselves.

Zairak

08-13-2008, 10:09 PM

While you are correct in that assume can mean 'pretend to have', I think it was quite clear he was using the term 'assume' in the following sense:

To take for granted or without proof; suppose; postulate.

I understand all too well that Christianity is based entirely on faith. I was merely correcting you. You were making your arguments under the assumption that God did exist. Since this topic seems to be about the existance of a God or lack thereof, shouldn't you put forth some logic or reasoning for this? I understand that you believe in God through faith, but that does not make for a compelling argument. It seems counter-active to not give reasons in a debate.

agrajagthetesty

08-14-2008, 07:54 AM

I ment nothing offensive, but it was made to sound like we are ment to do nothing with ourselves.
I wasn't offended. I was just concerned at what seemed to me like an irrelevant statement. I think I understand better now, and I have one more point to make: just because I don't think we have a purpose set out for us, doesn't mean I don't think we should try and achieve something with our lives. It's precisely because I don't think our lives have a predetermined meaning that I think we should try as hard as we can to find one for ourselves.

ULTRADUDE0

08-14-2008, 09:51 AM

this is the most ridiculous thing ever... I disproved a bunch of those things! What proof do you have that there is a god? You can't just make up figures and say that it's true. I'm not atheist but come on, you can do better than that if you want people to be the same religion as you.

And oh yes

FRENCH TOAST STICKS! <img src='/images/emoticons/smiley6.png'>

YG117

08-14-2008, 11:30 AM

I understand what you are saying, and the best proof that we catholics can give is by simply looking at the world around us, miracles, and other things in life. But many people just don't want to see God through those things, and instead look at science.I wasn't offended. I was just concerned at what seemed to me like an irrelevant statement. I think I understand better now, and I have one more point to make: just because I don't think we have a purpose set out for us, doesn't mean I don't think we should try and achieve something with our lives. It's precisely because I don't think our lives have a predetermined meaning that I think we should try as hard as we can to find one for ourselves.
Now that you have explained, i understand hat you were going towards a lot better.this is the most ridiculous thing ever... I disproved a bunch of those things! What proof do you have that there is a god? You can't just make up figures and say that it's true. I'm not atheist but come on, you can do better than that if you want people to be the same religion as you.
No one is trying to get anyone to believe in the same religion as each other, this is just a debate on the existance of God.

agrajagthetesty

08-14-2008, 11:41 AM

the best proof that we catholics can give is by simply looking at the world around us, miracles, and other things in life.
I'm sure if you already believe that God exists, you see evidence of him around because you believe he created everything. But to see the world as a miracle and hence evidence of God's existence, you first have to reject all other theories as to how it came about. The logic is entirely circular.But many people just don't want to see God through those things, and instead look at science.
You've put your finger on an interesting point here: namely, the value religion puts on faith. I honestly don't mean to be disrespectful here, but I for one would rather look at science, where any new theory has to be put through rigorous testing before becoming generally accepted, than religion, which relies on faith and therefore by definition has no proof to support it. In short, I fail to see the value of faith.

notbrock

08-26-2008, 12:12 PM

about my last post: i forgot i even posted that! there is no logical proof in afterlife we only have our beliefs and ideals as guidelines. i don't know, i mean maybe i just lost respect for god seeing as all the shit that's been going on lately (can you say EMO!!). if we don't believe in god we have no hope but also we have no fear seeing as the right-wrong factor swims around his decision. but we all have the deep feeling of morality to what's right and wrong so we decide most of the time for ourselves. all in all what it really comes down to is belief no matter if it's real or not

agrajagthetesty

08-26-2008, 12:33 PM

if we don't believe in god we have no hope.
Sorry to sound immature, but says who? Have you ever lost faith (assuming you are in fact a theist, which I'm pretty sure you are)? Have you ever asked an atheist to explain their views on life? Have you ever been told by an atheist that losing their religion caused them to lose hope? Atheists have hope that life on this planet will improve- for them, for their loved ones and for living creatures in general- just as everyone else does. Not believing in an afterlife makes this sentiment that much more important.

Zairak

08-26-2008, 07:25 PM

Ah...I am not trying to be rude, but could you rephrase this post? I am having a difficult time understanding it.

Also, in regards to your earlier post...i have a question: i know god exist but i want to know does he like to make people suffer for the 'bigger picture'? maybe that's a stupid question but i've asked it and nobody seems to be able to answer me. and also just to put it out there in case it was brought up or will be: there is an after life. there just has to be! what's the point of being created if all it's just suffering we have to endure.
I don't quite get what you mean by 'suffering'. I don't see any experience in life as 'suffering', you see. There are obviously experiences that should logically be avoided, such as death, but even pain is just an experience. Pain is also something to be avoided, of course, as it generally indicates something is wrong with your body, but it is not bad in and of itself. So, what suffering were you referring to?

killshot

08-26-2008, 08:31 PM

Cancer kinda sucks. I think I would call that suffering.

darkarcher

08-26-2008, 08:40 PM

I don't normally post here, but here I go...

The current "suffering" condition of mankind, in the Christian worldview, is attributed to the corruption of the world due to the sin of humanity. Another common question is "Why does God let bad things happen to good people." The answer to this would be, once again, that it is merely the nature of the world for bad things to happen due to the nature of man.

Zairak

08-26-2008, 09:37 PM

In that cancer is typically incurable and leads to death, yes, it does suck. However, again, pain is merely a sensation. It only has as much power as you give it. The current "suffering" condition of mankind, in the Christian worldview, is attributed to the corruption of the world due to the sin of humanity. Another common question is "Why does God let bad things happen to good people." The answer to this would be, once again, that it is merely the nature of the world for bad things to happen due to the nature of man.
While you are correct from the Christian viewpoint, Notbrock seemed to be asking what the point to living and suffering would be if there was not an afterlife. I concluded from this that, in this scenario of useless 'suffering', there was no God to make an afterlife. After reading your post, I thought about it and I suppouse he could have meant a scenario in which God created us without an afterlife, but that doesn't make as much sense as my first conclusion. It would rather invalidate the teachings of an afterlife in the Bible in that scenario and that does not make sense if he is speaking from a Christian viewpoint.

killshot

08-27-2008, 01:58 PM

it is merely the nature of the world for bad things to happen due to the nature of man.
But if God is responsible for creating humans, then he is also responsible for their nature. This would imply that the world we are currently living in is the world that God intended to create. The "sin of humanity" is just humans doing what comes naturally to them. If God didn't want humans to sin, then why are we born not only with the ability, but the desire to do so? Free will is the answer I always receive when I ask this question (even though free will and an omniscient being who controls the future cannot coexist) but freedom of choice is not the issue. Why do humans have such a strong, burning desire to do the things that God has told them not to do? It is as if the system is designed to send as many people as possible to hell.

Getting back to the original sin, why was it so blasphemous to eat from the tree of knowledge? Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the fruit from this tree give humans the ability to distinguish good from evil? This should be a desirable trait, not a sacrilegious one. And if this truly was a great sin and all the generations that follow Adam and Eve are punished for it, then why is the difference between right and wrong still so ambiguous? We are cursed to forever pay the price for this crime, yet we are no longer reaping the reward? I guess this whole argument boils down to why is our all loving God such a dick?