To those who believe, I honestly mean no offense, I am curious: Where do you believe heaven and hell are, or are they beyond that sort of physical restriction?
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Women are heaven and hell.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
"Second star to the right, straight on til morning".
"Why this is hell, nor am I out of it."
There's no such thing as hell. And heaven, as it relates to hell, doesn't exist either. That's not to say that there isn't an afterlife. There is. It doesn't exist in our world, though. Not in our physical universe.
Our world is a subset of existence. The afterlife is another subset of existence.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I'd go more with the "outside of conventional time and space" deal. Also, they can be states of mind occupied during mortality.
Posted by Starsnuffer (Member # 8116) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka: Also, they can be states of mind occupied during mortality.
What does that mean? Thinking good thoughts or evil?
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
Heaven: anywhere, with enough MDMA. Hell: 1st & Pike, 98101.
Posted by JonHecht (Member # 9712) on :
Hell: Beyond the forest Heaven: Making love while eating a steak and watching TV (Seinfeld!)
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
In my opinion, heaven and hell are conditions rather than geographic locations. They describe the state of our relationship with the Divine.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Heaven: Within the mind of the peaceful. Hell: Within the mind of the non-peaceful.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
heaven: the jounrny one takes after our current adventure is over.
hell: I would lose my optimism in the universe if such a horrible place existed.
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
"Hell is sixteen bassoons playing in unison." (H. Berlotz)
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Out of tune, at 6 am, while you're trying to sleep.
I went to music camp three summers.
Posted by Fusiachi (Member # 7376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: hell: I would lose my optimism in the universe if such a horrible place existed.
Really?
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Hell is being around other people. Or being alone.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"Hell is being around other people. Or being alone."
OK, were you being really subtle and deep, or funny? Posted by JonHecht (Member # 9712) on :
quote:Originally posted by Fusiachi:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: hell: I would lose my optimism in the universe if such a horrible place existed.
Really?
I just read Candide yesterday. Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Heaven: Is making the perfect pun. Hell: Listening to the perfect pun.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Hell: Enduring the day with someone you loathe because you get to sleep with them that night.
Heaven: Enduring sleep next to someone you love, dreaming about spending the day with them.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
steven: I was being subtle and deep, but if it makes you laugh, I'm just as happy =)
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Heaven is generally held to be a separate plane of existence, so it could be assumed hypothetically to be a 'physical' place, but even if it was physical in the same manner as our own plane, there is no way to infer how it spatially relates to our own plane.
Hell is part of the Florida panhandle.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
Heaven: any moment in time where I'm having or giving an orgasm. Hell: the rest.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Fusiachi:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: hell: I would lose my optimism in the universe if such a horrible place existed.
Really?
The idea of sentencing anyone, even Hitler, to eternal torture has always bothered me.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
I know exactly where they are.
*ahem*
Soooooome wheeeeeerrrrrreee oooooh-ver the raaaainnn boooowww!
Posted by Fusiachi (Member # 7376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Threads:
quote:Originally posted by Fusiachi:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: hell: I would lose my optimism in the universe if such a horrible place existed.
Really?
The idea of sentencing anyone, even Hitler, to eternal torture has always bothered me.
Sure, it's not a pleasant sort of doctrine. Would it necessitate giving up on optimism, supposing you were an optimist?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
pretty much, because then no matter what I do or how good I do it, that is where I would enevitably end up if it exists.
Posted by Raventhief (Member # 9002) on :
"Maybe this world is another planet's Hell." -Aldous Huxley
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
In Heaven:
The police are British
The cooks are French
The engineers are German
The administrators are Swiss
The lovers are Italian
In Hell:
The police are German
The cooks are British
The engineers are Italian
The administrators are French
The lovers are Swiss
In Computer Heaven:
Intel is in charge of management
Apple is in charge of design
Microsoft is in charge of marketing
IBM is in charge of support
Gateway is in charge of pricing
In Computer Hell:
Apple is in charge of management
Microsoft is in charge of design
IBM is in charge of marketing
Gateway is in charge of support
Intel is in charge of pricing
[ November 12, 2007, 06:48 PM: Message edited by: Lisa ]
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
It would certainly go a long way toward disproving the existence of an all powerful god who loves us like his own children.
It would also contradict the parable of the prodigal son.
Posted by Fusiachi (Member # 7376) on :
Supposing there isn't an all powerful god who loves us like his own children, does that give us reason to despair? I mean, the atheists and agnostics don't get too worked up about it.
That's not to say there aren't plenty of reasons to despair. See: Candide.
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: pretty much, because then no matter what I do or how good I do it, that is where I would inevitably end up if it exists.
It seems like you're not very optimistic to begin with. If you knew of the existence of "Hell", then you're certainly not too far away from arriving at the conclusion that there's probably a Heaven too. Which puts you on the right track to making it there. An assumption that you couldn't make it there regardless belies a lack of optimism totally unconnected to the existence of Hell.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Fusiachi: Supposing there isn't an all powerful god who loves us like his own children, does that give us reason to despair? I mean, the atheists and agnostics don't get too worked up about it.
The problem is not with God, it is with a God that would be cruel enough to damn people to eternal torture. A God that did that would be much worse than Hitler, Stalin, and Mao combined. No amount of evil that someone could do in a finite amount of time ever justifies eternal torture.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Why are we so sure that God condemns us? I believe that we can only condemn ourselves. And why do we think that wherever we are at the moment we die is where we stay forever. If there is eternal life, why can't we change our minds?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: In my opinion, heaven and hell are conditions rather than geographic locations. They describe the state of our relationship with the Divine.
Agreeing with Ms. Boots.
Posted by Fusiachi (Member # 7376) on :
So there's a God, and he's cruel (in this one instance). Working within the Christian paradigm, he's also responsible for our existence, and access to eternal paradise. So he's not perfect (and "perfection" is a tricky concept). In the meantime, why bother being bummed out about it? I mean, you've got eternal paradise in front of you.
Optimism might be naive, but pessimism isn't much of a way to live, if you ask me.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
LDS doctrine, as I understand it, describes two stages of afterlife. The first, called the spirit world, is divided into a paradise and prison. Paradise is a state of being engaged in God's work, and having interaction with him. Prison is a state of, perhaps the best word is rehabilitation, in which those who believe but fell short in mortality are given an opportunity to work through their short comings, and those who didn't believe are given the opportunity to change their minds. As I understand the doctrine, the spirit world exists in some way within the shared space of the earth, but is veiled from our own existence. What this means is ambiguous to me.
The second stage of after-life occurs after the resurrection, i.e. reuniting of spirits with physical bodies which will occur at Christ's second coming. In what is generally called the Final Judgment, Christ will separate us into kingdoms, according to the level of obedience, reprentence, faith, charity, etc. we have shown, and according to the degree we have allowed Him to enter into our lives and change us to become more like Him. In the end, the highest kingdom is reserved for those who are willing to live as Christ lives, to do what He does in all ways and at all times. Kingdoms are as diverse as the individuals who inhabit them, and Christ's judgments will be deemed just by all those who are judged. In a way, our kingdoms will be determined by ourselves and our desire for a relationship with God more than they will be assigned to us. The earth at this point will have ceased to exist as we experience it today; it will go through a perfecting process, and become an abode for perfected beings (made perfect in Christ). Those who don't choose to live with Christ will no longer live on this Earth, but will physically reside (inasmuch as "physical" descriptions can be used in imortality) elsewhere.
Anyone, LDS or not, should feel free to correct me on any points on which I'm mistaken. Although the afterlife is something frequently discussed in LDS doctrine, it's not something that's easily explained or understood.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Fusiachi: So there's a God, and he's cruel (in this one instance). Working within the Christian paradigm, he's also responsible for our existence, and access to eternal paradise. So he's not perfect (and "perfection" is a tricky concept). In the meantime, why bother being bummed out about it? I mean, you've got eternal paradise in front of you.
Then I would have to live my life constantly aware that a supernatural being was watching my every move. I don't think I could enjoy that. Btw, I'm going by what I believe to be a strict interpretation of the Bible where not believing in God is enough to not get into heaven. Maybe thats not in the Bible. If it isn't then please tell me. Regardless, if thats not what you believe then we are probably talking past each other.
quote:Originally posted by Fusiachi: Optimism might be naive, but pessimism isn't much of a way to live, if you ask me.
Nope it definitely isn't. I don't believe in God anyways so this whole discussion is theoretical for me.
quote:Originally posted by kmboots: Why are we so sure that God condemns us? I believe that we can only condemn ourselves.
I'm probably taking you too literally but isn't that analogous to the claim that my English teacher likes to make where she says that she doesn't determine grades but we earn them? I'm not convinced that that flip in perspective is valid. It seems to me that a government could use a similar change in perspective to claim that the state does not decide punishments but rather that criminals earn their punishments. This seems to rest on the fact that the criminal's punishment is just. An extreme example would be if someone were sentenced to life for smoking pot. In my mind, they hardly "earned" that punishment even if it was a law and they were aware of it. In a similar way, I don't think anybody can condemn themselves to eternal torture because eternal torture is never just (in my opinion of course).
quote:Originally posted by kmboots: And why do we think that wherever we are at the moment we die is where we stay forever. If there is eternal life, why can't we change our minds?
Is that stated in the Bible? Now that I think about I do seem to vaguely remember the idea that every soul, including those of people who have died, gets "reevaluated" during the Rapture (maybe during a class discussion on Dante's Inferno?). Anyways, I am honestly ignorant in that area so if you could direct me to the chapter I would have to read I would greatly appreciate it.
EDIT: Chapter/book of the Bible for the last sentence
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: It would certainly go a long way toward disproving the existence of an all powerful god who loves us like his own children.
It would also contradict the parable of the prodigal son.
If Hell doesn't exist, it seems to contradict the parables of the wheat and the tares, the sheep and the goats, Lazarus and the beggar, and others. Furthermore, I don't see why the existence of Hell would contradict the parable of the prodigal son. But I guess it comes more from the somewhat unique LDS perspective that God is unable to save us in our sins (a hat tip to the "all-powerful God" clause in your original statement). I believe that God must abide by eternal laws, one of which is that "heaven" is only heaven inasmuch as it consists of people who choose to live heavenly principles. To admit those who aren't willing to abide by those principles would destroy the whole thing.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Threads, that isn't what I meant at all. God always desires to be with us; we can decide no to be with God.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
Ok thanks. I thought I was missing something
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Threads:
quote:Originally posted by Fusiachi: Supposing there isn't an all powerful god who loves us like his own children, does that give us reason to despair? I mean, the atheists and agnostics don't get too worked up about it.
The problem is not with God, it is with a God that would be cruel enough to damn people to eternal torture. A God that did that would be much worse than Hitler, Stalin, and Mao combined. No amount of evil that someone could do in a finite amount of time ever justifies eternal torture.
Amen.
Posted by adfectio (Member # 11070) on :
Not including LDS doctrine (I'm pretty ignorant on that), most Bible Scholars say that there are 4 places in the afterlife.
The Good: Paradise, or Abraham's Bosom
The Bad: The Rest
The Ugly: Hell
And the Best: Heaven
Up until Christ came and died on the cross, Christian philosophers agree that only two of these had any vacancy. Paradise, and The Rest. The three days while he was dead, he spent in Heaven preparing a place for them. From then on, those who believed and followed God would not go to Paradise, but rather Heaven.
Then, when Christ comes a second time, The gates to Hell are opened and those who were in The Rest are transfered to Hell.
This may not be correct, I'll have to check on it, but It rings true, and I thought it might be helpful. However when it's all said and done
quote:They describe the state of our relationship with the Divine.
...is probably as true as you get.
It's not that there is torture, per se`, but rather that being separated from the one true God is torture enough in itself.
Posted by Shawshank (Member # 8453) on :
If hell does not exist and we all get to heaven, then why should we live by any particular spiritual, moral, or civil laws? What would be our incentive?
God is love and is also just. God does not want to damn us- but He is bound by His own just nature. "For the wages of sin is death" - we sin therefore we must die. Or something must die. In OT Hebrew customs it was the sacrifice of animals; in NT Christianity we allow the sacrifice of Christ to be used as the sacrifice for us. Those who do not accept that sacrifice must make that sacrifice themselves.
And must experience the second death. It may not be cheerful- but it does provide structure and meaning to the manner in which we live our lives. Which is infinitely more hopeful for me than not believing in any divine meaning at all.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
"God does not want to damn us- but He is bound by His own just nature"
Course... whose fault is it that we sin in the first place?
I certainly didn't get a choice in the matter. And neither did you.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
"In OT Hebrew customs it was the sacrifice of animals; in NT Christianity we allow the sacrifice of Christ to be used as the sacrifice for us. Those who do not accept that sacrifice must make that sacrifice themselves."
Why must there be a sacrifice in the first place? A god with infinite power, but who demands sacrifice from one to fix a sin which was in no way his fault in the first place... that's justice? Please.
"And must experience the second death. It may not be cheerful- but it does provide structure and meaning to the manner in which we live our lives. Which is infinitely more hopeful for me than not believing in any divine meaning at all. "
Yes. Default infinite torture for merely existing, something that was certainly not my choice in the first place, is so much more hopeful than life and then, in the end, death.
Infinite punishment as justice for even the smallest of offences, in fact, as justice for our very human nature, something not in our control, which God has thus decreed sin. Infinite punishment.
Forever.
Perhaps God should learn something from the Bill of Rights.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
Eternal punishment for the crime of being human. Hopeful. Sure.
But, there's a way out! Just believe (without any physical evidence) that Christ (who you cannot even prove existed, certainly not that he did what was claimed he did) and you can be freed from the crime of humanity.
Do not? Eternal punishment, again, for the crime of being human, something I had no more choice over than a cat had a choice in being a cat.
Now, I do what I can, I try to be as kind, loving a person as possible. I give to the poor as I can, and though I am surely imperfect, I act to do what I believe is right. Even so, God will cast me into the fire should I not believe.
Believing, mind you, on the same evidence the false gods give. None. And, for believing in these false gods? Same punishment, if you read the Bible.
Well, if he gives no evidence, how can I know that this IS the right god? One cannot tell the difference, when it comes to evidence. So, in the interest of not believing in false gods, I dont' believe without evidence. Still, for this, I'll still be punished.
Oh, and if I wish to end my life, to keep from committing more sins? Well, that's a sin that sends you STRAIGHT to Hell! There's no escape. Nothing a human can do can stop eternal damnation from coming, if your religion is true.*
Why? I had no choice in being human. If I had been given the offer "live on Earth, live, and then when you die, burn in Hell for all eternity unless you'e lucky enough to be born into Christianity or experience it in your life and be able to discern that it's the true religion, even if it has no more evidence than any others" or "don't exist at all" you can bet your bottom dollar I'd choose the latter.
Why didn't I get the choice? And why am I forced to pick the true god without evidence? What are the odds I find the right one, since all religions claim the same kidns of miracles, the same feelings, the same sorts of evidences?
Each claims to have the true way.
What chance do I have, if the choice is no better than random luck, the circumstances in which I was born, which is again something I had no choice over?
What kind of god would create such a system, and what kind of man would call it "just", "hopeful", or anything else but mad?
Is it impertinate to ask why God, if he "doesn't want to do it" does it anyway?
Nothing's stopping Him. He's all powerful, after all. If your god wants to do something, all he has to do is say the word.
He did when creating us, when creating heaven, and, also, when creating the hell in which he consigns us from birth. All it takes is a word.
Why did he have to use blood? And why did he have to undo it, if he did, in such an asininely unjust manner?
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shawshank: If hell does not exist and we all get to heaven, then why should we live by any particular spiritual, moral, or civil laws? What would be our incentive?
Virtue is it's own reward. Marcus Aurelius succinctly sums up why you should be virtuous whether or not god(s) exist.
quote: "Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones." ~ Marcus Aurelius
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
"Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones.""
Another reason I like this guy.
Why can't we have a philosopher for a president?
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
The prodigal son didn't just show up back at home. He was living with the pigs and thought "the least servant in my father's house is better off than me" and decided to go back and apply as a servant. Not everyone would do that.
The sheep and the goats says many things. One thing it talks about, which all three of the Matthew 25 parables talk about, is whether we truly know God or only think we do, and whether we have allowed him to really know us. All those who are denied the kingdom thought they knew God, and thought they knew how to behave. It's really quite worrying.
Posted by Shawshank (Member # 8453) on :
0Megabyte- I really don't appreciate your sarcasm. It's not exactly polite. I wasn't mocking you or anyone else, nor do I think that anything I said is worth mocking.
And you specifically brought up the idea of suicide- that's a difficult one but yes I do believe that those who kill themselves will not gain entry into heaven. Why? It's the ultimate act of pride really.
It is a way of saying that they have no hope and they want life to end. So they end it. That's like telling God- 'you idiot why did you make me. I'm going murder some of your creation'
The 10 Commandments says "Do not murder" it does not say "Do not murder [other people]" Why should God care if you kill yourself any different if you killed another person. Either way you are killing a significant part of God's creation.
And the idea of one killing themselves to stop committing sin is laughable. As one who has lived with suicidals almost since birth and who was himself for a number of years and who has studied some of the Psychology of Suicide- it just doesn't happen.
quote:Course... whose fault is it that we sin in the first place?
It certainly isn't God's fault that we sin. God, being sinless cannot even tempt us. Let alone cause us to sin- but he does respect the free will He gave us- and therefore allows us to break from His will if we so desire to. It's not about a list of things you can and can't do. A sin is a violation of the known will of God. God can't cause us to do that.
Why must death come? My own personal belief is this: God is infinite in time- He was uncreated and is eternal. He is also infinitely good- cannot be tempted nor does He tempt. And when we sin- we are destroying our relationship with God. And all sin being a violation of the known will of God, then all sin is objectively equal. They all do the same amount of damage to our relationship with God. And therefore since God is infinite- and sin is a rejection of God. Therefore sin can be IMO a rejection of the infinite. And when we want to come back to God's good graces something has to take the brokenness of our relationship onto itself.
quote: Why didn't I get the choice? And why am I forced to pick the true god without evidence? What are the odds I find the right one, since all religions claim the same kidns of miracles, the same feelings, the same sorts of evidences?
Maybe the answer isn't found in miracles, feelings or any sort of empirical evidence. --------------------------------- The reason why I find it hopeful is simply to provide meaning for what we do. I personally believe even when I wasn't a Christian in objective causality. That there is a definite meaning to everything- even if it's in my grasp but it does actually exist.
Am I mad? Probably- but not regarding this I wouldn't think.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
SS: 0Meg did not insult you. He was simply stating his case.
Suicide is NOT pride. Suicide is dispair. I'm sure some have killed themselves out of anger at god, but atheists have killed themselves too. God didn't enter into it.
KMB: Have I ever told you how much I love the way you see God?
0Meg: I think you and I went through very similar thought processes in our loss of faith. Including the whole Sacrifice thing. It never made since to me, even as a child. Why would an all powerful god insist on a sacrifice? Why would he have to sacrifice his son? Why couldn't he just change the rules instead?
Posted by Saephon (Member # 9623) on :
The kind of God often described to me seems more interested in running an experiment than creating paradise.
We are the ants in the ant farm, and the Science Fair is coming up.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Thanks, Pixiest!
(It is really the only way that makes sense to me. You start with the given that God is infinite and loving - 'cuz what's the point otherwise - then everything else has to make sense with that. If it doesn't make sense with that, we are probably understanding it wrong.)
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote:Is that stated in the Bible? Now that I think about I do seem to vaguely remember the idea that every soul, including those of people who have died, gets "reevaluated" during the Rapture (maybe during a class discussion on Dante's Inferno?). Anyways, I am honestly ignorant in that area so if you could direct me to the chapter I would have to read I would greatly appreciate it.
That is an interesting question. It's part of Jehovah's Witness teaching, so I'm pretty sure it must be biblical. Though Jehovah's Witnesses don't believe we have any awareness between death and judgement. We used to come back to that question a lot. Mormons believe in it too, I'm just not sure where is says so scripturally.
[ November 13, 2007, 02:02 PM: Message edited by: pooka ]
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by adfectio: Not including LDS doctrine (I'm pretty ignorant on that), most Bible Scholars say that there are 4 places in the afterlife.
The Good: Paradise, or Abraham's Bosom
The Bad: The Rest
The Ugly: Hell
And the Best: Heaven
Up until Christ came and died on the cross, Christian philosophers agree that only two of these had any vacancy. Paradise, and The Rest. The three days while he was dead, he spent in Heaven preparing a place for them. From then on, those who believed and followed God would not go to Paradise, but rather Heaven.
Then, when Christ comes a second time, The gates to Hell are opened and those who were in The Rest are transfered to Hell.
This may not be correct, I'll have to check on it, but It rings true, and I thought it might be helpful. However when it's all said and done
Who are these "most Biblical Scholars"?
Orthodox Christian theology holds that Christ spent the time he was dead in hell, not in heaven. And the gates of hell are opened to let people out, not to transfer them in.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
I have a story half written about an Angel who is seduced by the devil. She leaves Heaven and descends into Hell out of her love for him.
Once in Hell, of course, the Devil treats her badly, abuses her, cuts her off from all that she knew so that she's alone and scared. He even rips off her wings out of anger and jealousy.
She escapes--grows new wings and all--not when God finally decides to call down to her, but when she gains the courage to listen for God's voice.
In deed, when she first hears the call of God, she hides, for she believes herself unworthy of his love, and must be worthy only of his hate and punishment.
She accepts, finally, that she must love herself as one of God's creations. When she loves and respects herself enough, she gains the courage to leave, to grow new wings, to fly free of the sweet trappings and violence that the Devil enforces upon her.
It is a metaphor for wife abuse, but it also reflects my view on the question, how can a Loving God torture his creations vs. how can a Just God not torture his creations when they do wrong.
God does not Waterboard. We end up Waterboarding ourselves.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I believe that most people who commit suicide are not in their correct state of mind. I believe God takes that strongly into account when deciding how to respond to your decision to take your own life.
I still think suicide is wrong, but it a wrong I think God has alot of understanding for, afterall the world we live in is one that he knew would eventually exist when he created it.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I believe that most people who commit suicide are not in their correct state of mind. I believe God takes that strongly into account when deciding how to respond to your decision to take your own life.
I still think suicide is wrong, but it a wrong I think God has alot of understanding for, afterall the world we live in is one that he knew would eventually exist when he created it.
Where do you get this information? Or is it just your opinion? (Not meant to be snarky, seriously curious.)
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
It's a Mormon teaching, basically expanding the dictum "Judge not" to people who have commited suicide, and that we can't know that they will be damned.
Since we're sort of on this topic in the other thread, I'll say that the aspect of an afterlife that discouraged me as a young Mormon from suicide was not that I'd be damned, but that the pain would not stop, and I wouldn't even be able to drown it in chocolate.
quote:Elder M. Russell Ballard of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles has said: "Obviously, we do not know the full circumstances surrounding every suicide. Only the Lord knows all the details, and he it is who will judge our actions here on earth. "When he does judge us, I feel he will take all things into consideration: our genetic and chemical makeup, our mental state, our intellectual capacity, the teachings we have received, the traditions of our fathers, our health, and so forth" ("Suicide: Some Things We Know, and Some We Do Not," Ensign, Oct. 1987, 8).
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I believe that most people who commit suicide are not in their correct state of mind. I believe God takes that strongly into account when deciding how to respond to your decision to take your own life.
I still think suicide is wrong, but it a wrong I think God has alot of understanding for, afterall the world we live in is one that he knew would eventually exist when he created it.
Where do you get this information? Or is it just your opinion? (Not meant to be snarky, seriously curious.)
It's a smattering of both.
Clearly suicide is considered wrong according to Christian theology (edit: At least that is how I view the scriptures). Accounts of people who do commit suicide, that I have read, convince me that most people who commit the actual act, at the time are not rational in their decision making processes.
I once read a random statistic that said a majority of people who commit suicide regret the decision after the fact. These are of course taken from cases where the person survived.
There are people very close to me who have talked about suicide. It scared the hell out of me once to hear somebody I care about deeply say, "By the time you get home, I'll have taken care of this problem," in reference to themselves being miserable. I called work and said I was not coming in, and skipped school that day. In retrospect I do not think that person would have gone through with it that day, but the possibility was definately on the table.
I also read a study recently that found children who are gender conflicted, that is the gender they believe they are is not consistant with their sex have a 50/50 chance of commiting suicide in adolesence. Currently the only treatment is pubecent hormone inhibitors that slow down puberty until the patient is in their 20's and less likely to commit suicide. That to me indicates that suicide is often not a carefully considered and rational solution to a problem, often it is a reflex.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:I once read a random statistic that said a majority of people who commit suicide regret the decision after the fact. These are of course taken from cases where the person survived.
I remember watching a documentary a few years back about people who had survived jumping from the Golden Gate Bridge. And IIRC, the unanimous 'first thought' after jumping was "Oh no, what have I done!?"
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
PILLS people! If you really want to off yourself but you're afraid you'll regret, take PILLS! That way if you change your mind you have time to call 911 and try to swallow your finger.
Don't try to OD on Tylenol. If you fail you could have liver damage and that would just make your life suck more.
There's a good chance you'll fail, so don't put anything too embarrassing in your suicide note.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
"0Megabyte- I really don't appreciate your sarcasm. It's not exactly polite. I wasn't mocking you or anyone else, nor do I think that anything I said is worth mocking."
Who said anything about mocking? But I disagree vehemontly with your idea, and I was, as Pixiest said, stating my case.
"And you specifically brought up the idea of suicide- that's a difficult one but yes I do believe that those who kill themselves will not gain entry into heaven. Why? It's the ultimate act of pride really."
There are many reasons for a person to kill themselves. If you think it's all merely pride, then your imagination has faltered somewhat.
And as I said: No way out, then, is there? Certainly killing yourself to avoid sin is, itself, a sin in the eyes of your god, should he be real.
There's literally no escape.
"And the idea of one killing themselves to stop committing sin is laughable. As one who has lived with suicidals almost since birth and who was himself for a number of years and who has studied some of the Psychology of Suicide- it just doesn't happen."
It was a hypothetical. It's a thought that came into my mind, at least. Certainly it's a good point, it's a valid point, even if people don't actually do so. Hypothetical. The only one saying anyone's ideas are laughable seems to be you, not me.
"It certainly isn't God's fault that we sin. God, being sinless cannot even tempt us. Let alone cause us to sin- but he does respect the free will He gave us- and therefore allows us to break from His will if we so desire to. It's not about a list of things you can and can't do. A sin is a violation of the known will of God. God can't cause us to do that."
Don't be silly. Who designed us?
Did I design myself, with the capacity to sin?
Did I?
Did I choose to sin, even those times when I don't know what your god's definitions of what is right and wrong is?
Did I choose to posess human nature, the drives humans have, the desires, feelings, emotions that merely pop up as a function of being human, which God then designates as sin?
I don't have free will, when it comes to being human. Neither do you.
We have a specific design. Most of us have feelings of lust for people of the opposite sex, regardless of whether we marry that person or not.
Jesus quite clearly pointed this out as the same as adultery.
Yet, how could such a feeling exist, hmm? Due to the nature of our brains.
And who designed our brains? Certainly not you or I. But even so, you cannot escape such feelings, and you cannot escape sin, due to our very design. That's kind of the point, remember?
Human beings are terrible creatures not actually worth forgiving on their own merits, you believe this. All humans. Every single one. Based on how we are.
But we didn't choose how we are. We didn't choose the design of our brains, the way our instincts work, how our bodies work.
You say we have free will, yes? But we had no free will in regards to being born human. We had no choice but, in your theology, to be born in a state that is, by definition, imperfect enough to send us to hell.
Also: You say a sin is a violation of the known will of God, and God can't do that.
Shall I point out the Pharoah, which the Book of Exodus explicitly says God hardened the heart of? And then punished him for it?
Your statement is in blatant disagreement with the Bible, the source of your knowledge about said god.
"And when we sin- we are destroying our relationship with God. "
But sin is built into our very selves. Those who live without knowing God, go to hell. This is because their very humanness, the things that make us human, are by definition sinful. They are against the will of God.
Why would God create a creature whose very nature, whose very design - for it is in fact our design, which you can see in our very brains, our very genes, to do many things God says are against his will - is in direct violation of his will?
That's silly.
"And therefore since God is infinite- and sin is a rejection of God. Therefore sin can be IMO a rejection of the infinite. "
That doesn't follow. Just because God is infinite does not mean God is THE infinite. I think you're equivocating. (Could be wrong, but it certainly sounds like it to me)
"Maybe the answer isn't found in miracles, feelings or any sort of empirical evidence."
Well, if your religion is right? Most people, the vast majority of humans, get it wrong.
But if it's not foudn in miracles, it's not found in feelings, it's not found in physical evidence... then what? Revelation is always a miracle, so revelation cannot be a true source. Physical emirical evidence covers pretty much everything there is, and is the only one I reliably use, and feelings, what's left if you take away those three things?
No means. No source of information at all. No ability to find the truth.
A god who claims to wish to save us if only we believe, but who leaves literally nothing of any reliability, which is what happens if what you said above is true, not even miracles... and who, if you don't by sheer luck feel that he's the correct one, for the same reasons you'd believe in false gods like Zeus or Thor, will send you to eternal damnation for the crime of being human, something you had no choice about in the first place... what kind of sadist is this?!
Such a god should be cursed and damned and resisted with all our might if he is real, and if he is false, should be annihilated from record so completely that no man ever dreams of worshipping it ever again.
But, to ask the question again that you avoided during this long thing:
Who designed us, Shawshank?
Who designed our brains, which happen to do things God calls sins due to its very design?
Who designed our bodies, capable of so easily thrawrting God's will merely by following the in-built urges we cannot turn off, and have no choice in feeling?
Who allowed us to be born as entities whose likeliness of sinning is absolute, and who is thus condemned from birth to eternal torment unless we get, essentially, randomly lucky? (For it's random luck, essentially, that a person comes into contact enough with Christianity, either through birth or through meeting convincing Christians and overcoming their original religious upbringing, a monumentally difficult task.)
Well?
Who did this?
It certainly wasn't I!
You say God gave us free will? Well, being born a sinner by default certainly wasn't my will!
Posted by Eowyn-sama (Member # 11096) on :
quote: Now, I do what I can, I try to be as kind, loving a person as possible. I give to the poor as I can, and though I am surely imperfect, I act to do what I believe is right. Even so, God will cast me into the fire should I not believe.
Why is it that Christians are always slammed for creating false dichotomies, and yet atheists get to pull stuff like this? There are millions of Christians who believe that, like Aurelius said, God will judge you on the virtues you live by. If you are cast into fire, it won't be because you didn't believe but because you were selfish, greedy, prideful, hateful, etc. (Not that you are any of these things, especially not from what I've seen so far, but hypothetically speaking)
quote:Well, if he gives no evidence, how can I know that this IS the right god? One cannot tell the difference, when it comes to evidence. So, in the interest of not believing in false gods, I dont' believe without evidence. Still, for this, I'll still be punished.
OMeg, it sounds like you'd like to believe in God, but you're angry and frustrated that he hasn't proved himself to exist, so you've stopped believing. Has it ever occurred to you that maybe he is offering proof, but you just won't accept it? I'm actually curious as to what proof you would accept? (this is a serious question, I've never had a good answer for it) Does God have to break his natural laws in order to show his face? Does it have to be shown that the universe as it exists can't do so without some force or guiding principle we'd call God?
As to the actual thread topic, I really liked the idea of heaven and hell in C.S. Lewis' The Great Divorce. Basically hell and purgatory were the same place: a dreary, empty city on the brink of twilight, where nothing ever changes and nothing really happens. Every material desire is immediately satisfied, so it isn't long before all things purely material loose their appeal. The damned can occasionally visit heaven, if they so choose, but although it is beautiful and wonderful, they are so insubstantial and weak that the beauty and wonder is experienced as pain. It is only when they give up their sins that heaven becomes not only bearable but truly paradisical.
Of course there's no theological backing for this, but it shows that it is possible to have both Heaven and Hell without abandoning the idea of a just, benevolent, omnipotent God.
Posted by Eowyn-sama (Member # 11096) on :
quote: But sin is built into our very selves. Those who live without knowing God, go to hell. This is because their very humanness, the things that make us human, are by definition sinful. They are against the will of God.
The very things that make us human? No, sins are a perversion of the things that make us human. We are built to be attracted to the opposite sex (or same sex, whatever) but the sin comes in having the pleasure of sex without the pleasures of love and commitment. The sin is not the the human desire for sex, but the unrestrained, ridiculously overblown desire for sex. Wanting to eat good food is also something we're programmed for, but if we only eat one thing that tastes best to us and constantly eat that one thing, it's a disgusting perversion of the pleasures of food.
I will agree though, that as humans the likeliness of not sinning during our lifetime is very small. That's why we teach forgiveness.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:We are built to be attracted to the opposite sex (or same sex, whatever) but the sin comes in having the pleasure of sex without the pleasures of love and commitment.
Why is that a sin? Or rather, why is that a bad thing?
Posted by Eowyn-sama (Member # 11096) on :
quote: Why is that a sin? Or rather, why is that a bad thing?
Well, for one thing, since sex is designed to make babies, sex without commitment leaves lots of single mothers with a burden they deserve help with. Do I really need to go into why random sex is a bad thing? There's STDs and broken hearts (if the love is all on one side) for a start.
Edit: The STDs would actually be a result of unsafe sex with an infected partner (which could happen within the context of love and commitment, admittedly), or failed safe sex, but the odds are far greater of getting an STD if you practice unrestrained sex.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Eowyn-sama: Wanting to eat good food is also something we're programmed for, but if we only eat one thing that tastes best to us and constantly eat that one thing, it's a disgusting perversion of the pleasures of food.
That's rather strong. It's not very good nutrition, certainly, but "digusting perversion"??
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote:Originally posted by Eowyn-sama:
quote: Now, I do what I can, I try to be as kind, loving a person as possible. I give to the poor as I can, and though I am surely imperfect, I act to do what I believe is right. Even so, God will cast me into the fire should I not believe.
Why is it that Christians are always slammed for creating false dichotomies, and yet atheists get to pull stuff like this? There are millions of Christians who believe that, like Aurelius said, God will judge you on the virtues you live by. If you are cast into fire, it won't be because you didn't believe but because you were selfish, greedy, prideful, hateful, etc.
It's true that there are millions of more liberal Christians as you say. But there are also millions of Christians who believe you will suffer eternally in hell no matter how good you are, if you don't believe in Christ. It's no false dichotomy to them but a very stark either/or proposition. They explicitly reject Aurelius' view, and can quote scripture at length to support their view.
I don't know which group is in the majority among Christians today. A century ago the either/or crowd was the majority.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Well, for one thing, since sex is designed to make babies, sex without commitment leaves lots of single mothers with a burden they deserve help with. Do I really need to go into why random sex is a bad thing? There's STDs and broken hearts (if the love is all on one side) for a start.
None of these sounds like intrinsic aspects of sex, but rather situationally dependent.
In a case where none of these will occur, is sex without love or commitment still a sin or a bad thing?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
MrSquicky, I would say, rather, that it becomes sinful when our desire for pleasure overrides our concern for the welfare of others.
edit: I would add that, in my xperience, sex that is just about one's own pleasure - satisfying that physical itch - is emptier and less fulfilling than sex where there is a deeper emotional connection. Missing out on that deeper connection could be considered sinful as it, in my opinion is "falling short" or "missing the mark" of what sex can be.
Posted by Eowyn-sama (Member # 11096) on :
Yeah, a little strong, but think of it this way (stolen from C.S. Lewis, not my idea):
Picture a strip-show setting where instead of a scantily-clad woman, you have a series of covered platters. There's music and lights, and slowly each of the platters is uncovered to show a delicious meal. The crowd goes wild at each revelation, thrilled by the sight. At the end of the show, the food is removed from the stage, uneaten. Kinda weird, huh?
I was trying to draw parallels between the appetite for sex and the appetite for food, and how both can be distorted.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
boots, I can surely get on board with that. I'm perfectly fine with situational aspects or the intent of the people involved making it sinful or bad, but we're talking about a statement that made the act itself a bad act.
Posted by Eowyn-sama (Member # 11096) on :
quote: In a case where none of these will occur, is sex without love or commitment still a sin or a bad thing?
I agree with kmb, with the added stipulation that the welfare of others includes all of those risks I mentioned, all of which *are* inherent, even if they are only inherent risks, and not guaranteed consequences.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
MrSquicky, see my edit - otherwise I don't disagree with you.
edit to add:
Eowyn-sama, there are inherent risks in most things.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Eowyn-sama: Why is it that Christians are always slammed for creating false dichotomies, and yet atheists get to pull stuff like this? There are millions of Christians who believe that, like Aurelius said, God will judge you on the virtues you live by. If you are cast into fire, it won't be because you didn't believe but because you were selfish, greedy, prideful, hateful, etc. (Not that you are any of these things, especially not from what I've seen so far, but hypothetically speaking)
It's very simple. As a Christian, you have a book, called the Bible. In the pages of the Bible, it says that those who don't believe in the God of the Bible will be sent to Hell.
Feel free to edit the Bible, like Jefferson did, and take out the parts you find objectionable. Until you do, if you call yourself a Christian, how can we not assume that you follow the writings of the Christian scripture?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:In the pages of the Bible, it says that those who don't believe in the God of the Bible will be sent to Hell.
Where does it say that?
I always thought Jesus's description of the criteria used to judge this was pretty inclusive.
Posted by Eowyn-sama (Member # 11096) on :
quote: Eowyn-sama, there are inherent risks in most things.
Yeah, but I'd say a baby or a serious STD are both risks that shouldn't be shrugged off too quickly.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Sigh. Javert, you seem to be assuming that Christians in general read the Bible literally and without any notion of context or interpretation.. This is not entirely true. Some Christians do that. Most do not.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
They are also risks that aren't inherent to sex, but rather situationally dependent.
edit: They are also risks that can occur where there is love and commitment.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Eowyn-sama, one shouldn't shrug off the risks of dying in a car accident. Yet driving is not considered sinful because of that.
Posted by Eowyn-sama (Member # 11096) on :
quote: They are also risks that aren't inherent to sex, but rather situationally dependent.
But is sex ever situationally independent? I think I've lost track of what we're arguing here.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
boots,
quote:I would add that, in my xperience, sex that is just about one's own pleasure - satisfying that physical itch - is emptier and less fulfilling than sex where there is a deeper emotional connection. Missing out on that deeper connection could be considered sinful as it, in my opinion is "falling short" or "missing the mark" of what sex can be.
You seem to be assuming that a deeper connection is available and beneficial in all cases of sexual intercourse. I don't agree that this is the case.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Sigh. Javert, you seem to be assuming that Christians in general read the Bible literally and without any notion of context or interpretation.. This is not entirely true. Some Christians do that. Most do not.
In that case, please explain the context of Mark 16: 14-16 for me:
quote:Later Jesus appeared to the Eleven as they were eating; he rebuked them for their lack of faith and their stubborn refusal to believe those who had seen him after he had risen. He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:But is sex ever situationally independent?
No, of course it isn't. Nothing ever is.
The point is that the things that you are saying make sex, in and of itself, sinful are not aspects of sex itself, but rather aspects of the situation that sex may occur in. Sex can occur in situations without those aspects, but you seem to still consider it sinful.
Posted by Eowyn-sama (Member # 11096) on :
I guess my original answer was why sex without love or commitment is a bad thing. That is somewhat different from why it's a sin, and I was too lazy to talk about the religious/spiritual implications.
I would say that sex without love or commitment is a sin because sex is a very profound act. Its very nature is to create new life, and since we still don't have a 100% effective method of birth control, that is still a possible outcome no matter what precautions are taken.
Without love or commitment that new life will not receive the full measure of care and consideration that it needs and if it lives to be an adult it has a greater chance of being a negative force in the world. (Edit: this is a very short statement for what I think is one of the most complex problems in our world, but maybe it sums it up enough to understand my point)
The reason why this is a greater risk than a car accident is that death does not equal creation of new life. You can die in many ways, but there is only one way to create life, and it should not be practiced lightly or without meaning.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
MrSquicky, I would say that, when I have had the opportunity for a sexual encounter, there is usually an opportunity for a deeper connection than just the pleasure created by a physical stimulus. When there isn't, the encounter has not usually been worth the situation risks or even the time and inconvenience.
Javert, I am not a biblical scholar. I don't know what audience the authors of Mark were addressing or in what context they were writing or what particular agenda they may have had. Nor do I know the specifics or nuances of the original language. Off the top of my head, though, I would interpret that as:
"Go out and tell people that there is more to being, that we are part of something that goes beyond death. Explain to them about the God of love and that we are to love each other. Give them the opportunity to have new lives with this understanding. Those who don't believe this are condemned to live without this knowledge."
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Without love or commitment that new life will not receive the full measure of care and consideration that it needs and if it lives to be an adult it has a greater chance of being a negative force in the world.
So all people who were conceived from sex that didn't take place in a loving, committed relationship did not receive the full measure of care and consideration that they needed? And, conversly, all the people conceived in relationships that did have these things did received the full measure of these?
---
quote:Its very nature is to create new life, and since we still don't have a 100% effective method of birth control, that is still a possible outcome no matter what precautions are taken.
Are you saying that there are no situations of having sex where creating a new life is not possible?
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Javert, I am not a biblical scholar. I don't know what audience the authors of Mark were addressing or in what context they were writing or what particular agenda they may have had. Nor do I know the specifics or nuances of the original language. Off the top of my head, though, I would interpret that as:
"Go out and tell people that there is more to being, that we are part of something that goes beyond death. Explain to them about the God of love and that we are to love each other. Give them the opportunity to have new lives with this understanding. Those who don't believe this are condemned to live without this knowledge."
Kmbboots, I respect you and I don't want to offend you...but that sounds like justification so you don't have to tell me I'm going to hell, or you don't want your religion to say I am. Not interpretation, but justification.
Maybe I'm wrong.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Javert, What is your take on the verse I linked?
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Javert, What is your take on the verse I linked?
Which one? Sorry, it's not jumping out at me.
Posted by Eowyn-sama (Member # 11096) on :
quote: Are you saying that there are no situations of having sex where creating a new life is not possible?
More or less, yeah. Unless one or other of the parties is sterile or has be rendered so.
Edited to add: There are stages in a woman's cycle where she is not fertile, but these are very hard to predict, so the couple is not likely to know and therefore I wouldn't call it a controllable variable.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Javert, Here ya go.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I believe Squick is refering to Matthew 25, verses 31-46.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
Found it. It's a lovely verse. By itself, it seems to suggest I have nothing to worry about as long as I lead a good and helpful life.
Unfortunately there are many other verses that describe the people who will receive eternal punishment. Why should I only read and believe this one?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:More or less, yeah. Unless one or other of the parties is sterile or has be rendered so.
Which is it, yes or no? You say yes and then immediately follow it up with a no.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:Without love or commitment that new life will not receive the full measure of care and consideration that it needs and if it lives to be an adult it has a greater chance of being a negative force in the world.
From what you describe, it sounds to me that the sin is in creating a life that you are unable to care for, not in sex itself. To condemn something merely because it could potentially lead to a sin would be like prohibiting the use of knives because they could possibly be used for murder.
Posted by Eowyn-sama (Member # 11096) on :
Yes, there are situations where creating a new life is not possible. Is this sex still sinful? I dunno. However, it's also fairly rare.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Why should I only read and believe this one?
You shouldn't. But you should be aware the there is some seeming contradiction in the Bible about this issue that people have different ways of reconciling.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert: Found it. It's a lovely verse. By itself, it seems to suggest I have nothing to worry about as long as I lead a good and helpful life.
Unfortunately there are many other verses that describe the people who will receive eternal punishment. Why should I only read and believe this one?
There are also many others that agree with Matthew. Why should you only read and believe the other ones?
That would be the "context" that katieboots was talking about. A lot of different opinions all in the same book. People read the whole thing and try to get a sense of who God is and what the relationship is (and should be) between God and humanity, add to it the traditions of their faith community and their own experience and reason and go from there.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Why is it that Christians are always slammed for creating false dichotomies, and yet atheists get to pull stuff like this?
Well, because it makes everything take longer to type if you have to write "a bunch of Christians believe that..." before every single statement. I mean, we have Catholics on this board who believe that God's not opposed to abortion, but I wouldn't hesitate for a minute to argue that Catholics oppose abortion; the fact that one or two Catholics disagree doesn't necessarily invalidate it.
In the same way, saying that "Christians believe in Jesus" despite the fact that some sects calling themselves Christian do not actually believe that Jesus Christ existed in the flesh is not a statement that requires much softening.
We have some pretty wild "Christian" beliefs on this board, to the extent that any generalization about Christian belief on Hatrack can be met with a "what about me?" exception from somebody. I'm not sure that's an atheist's fault, though.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Yes, there are situations where creating a new life is not possible. Is this sex still sinful? I dunno. However, it's also fairly rare.
So, can we say that it is not sex occurring outside of a loving and committed relationship that is sinful (or as you initially said "having the pleasure of sex without the pleasures of love and commitment") that is sinful, but rather common aspects of this situation?
Posted by Eowyn-sama (Member # 11096) on :
Fair enough, Christianity does get complicated. But it still invalidates the argument somewhat. If someone said "Christianity is false because Christians reject evolution" it wouldn't be a very good argument, because most Christians don't.
Edited for clarity
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Javert, you are wrong. It is like I wrote to Pixiest at the top of the (last) page, you start with the truth of an infinite and loving God. If what we understand doesn't correspond to that, we are probably interpreting it wrong.
Last night I discovered, by the way, that when I wrote that to Pixie I was channeling St. Augustine. This really isn't just something I invent.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Javert, you are wrong. It is like I wrote to Pixiest at the top of the (last) page, you start with the truth of an infinite and loving God. If what we understand doesn't correspond to that, we are probably interpreting it wrong.
Last night I discovered, by the way, that when I wrote that to Pixie I was channeling St. Augustine. This really isn't just something I invent.
OK.
Not to get into an argument, but I would say that reality doesn't correspond with an infinite and loving god. (That is, an infinitely loving god...which you may not have meant.)
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by 0Megabyte: You say God gave us free will? Well, being born a sinner by default certainly wasn't my will!
I have to agree. Of all the things about Christianity that squick me out, the idea of original sin is definitely the worst. The idea that we could be born into spiritual debt is just so grossly unjust.
Posted by Eowyn-sama (Member # 11096) on :
quote:I have to agree. Of all the things about Christianity that squick me out, the idea of original sin is definitely the worst. The idea that we could be born into spiritual debt is just so grossly unjust.
Yeah, it stinks and it's not fair, but it could also be deduced from observation without needing religion. How many people do you know that lead perfect lives? And by perfect I mean they have never hurt anyone, are at peace with themselves and are generally happy?
One of the things that strikes me as true about Christianity is that it occasionally presents truths that are unpleasant to swallow. Sure, I'd like to believe that humanity is naturally good and selfless, but history has proved otherwise time and time again. I'd like to believe that when we get something wrong, God in his wonderful warm fuzziness will make it all right without me having to put forth any effort and without any wide-reaching consequences, but that doesn't add up either.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:How many people do you know that lead perfect lives? And by perfect I mean they have never hurt anyone, are at peace with themselves and are generally happy?
None. What does that have to do with Original Sin?
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Eowyn-sama:
quote:I have to agree. Of all the things about Christianity that squick me out, the idea of original sin is definitely the worst. The idea that we could be born into spiritual debt is just so grossly unjust.
Yeah, it stinks and it's not fair, but it could also be deduced from observation without needing religion. How many people do you know that lead perfect lives? And by perfect I mean they have never hurt anyone, are at peace with themselves and are generally happy?
The fact that we aren't perfect can be deduced from observation. However, the conclusions that this is because of "original sin" or that we have a "spiritual debt" cannot.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:How many people do you know that lead perfect lives? And by perfect I mean they have never hurt anyone, are at peace with themselves and are generally happy?
None. What does that have to do with Original Sin?
That is the reality that the doctrine of original sin is an attempt to explain. Why, if we all are created good, none of us actually manage to live like it.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
You're throwing another religious assumption in there, that we were created good (or rather perfect).
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Well, yeah. Without that assumption the doctrine of original sin is rather meaningless.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Eowyn-sama:
quote:I have to agree. Of all the things about Christianity that squick me out, the idea of original sin is definitely the worst. The idea that we could be born into spiritual debt is just so grossly unjust.
Yeah, it stinks and it's not fair, but it could also be deduced from observation without needing religion.
Um... no, it really couldn't. There's a reason why only Christianity of all the world's religions has such a concept. Judaism doesn't have it.
quote:Originally posted by Eowyn-sama: How many people do you know that lead perfect lives? And by perfect I mean they have never hurt anyone, are at peace with themselves and are generally happy?
Not being perfect doesn't equate to inherently sinful. There's no "state of sin" that causes suffering. Suffering is caused by actual things. Not some hereditary onus.
quote:Originally posted by Eowyn-sama: One of the things that strikes me as true about Christianity is that it occasionally presents truths that are unpleasant to swallow. Sure, I'd like to believe that humanity is naturally good and selfless, but history has proved otherwise time and time again.
False dichotomy. People aren't born natural good and selfless any more than they are born naturally sinful. God gave us free will. No one is a complete sinner and no one is a complete saint. We do our best and muddle through.
The idea of raising up perfection as if anything short of it is evil is probably the root of much of the evil in the world itself.
quote:Originally posted by Eowyn-sama: I'd like to believe that when we get something wrong, God in his wonderful warm fuzziness will make it all right without me having to put forth any effort and without any wide-reaching consequences, but that doesn't add up either.
That's another false dichotomy. God gave us the option of repentance to clean the slate long before Christianity came into being, and it's still there. And it does require effort. It requires recognizing that you did something wrong and admitting it, aloud, to God. It requires regretting the action and committing not to do it again. And in the case where another person was the victim of the wrong, it requires that we at least make a serious attempt to right the wrong.
None of which has anything to do with the notion that people are born with a sin-monkey on their backs.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Well, yeah. Without that assumption the doctrine of original sin is rather meaningless.
Sorry, I don't think I was clear. That's my point. I was responding to this statement:
quote:Yeah, it stinks and it's not fair, but it could also be deduced from observation without needing religion.
You very much do need a specific theology to deduce Original Sin.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Ah. My apologies, I didn't re-read back up the thread.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
quote: I have to agree. Of all the things about Christianity that squick me out, the idea of original sin is definitely the worst. The idea that we could be born into spiritual debt is just so grossly unjust.
Thank you for getting my point, there. I was originally a Catholic, so original sin was probably a larger component than in some creeds, but oh, well.
---------
quote: Why is it that Christians are always slammed for creating false dichotomies, and yet atheists get to pull stuff like this? There are millions of Christians who believe that, like Aurelius said, God will judge you on the virtues you live by. If you are cast into fire, it won't be because you didn't believe but because you were selfish, greedy, prideful, hateful, etc. (Not that you are any of these things, especially not from what I've seen so far, but hypothetically speaking)
I've read the Bible, and I've seen both sides within the New Testament.
I'm pretty sure, though I could always be wrong, that if you told the authors of those books the concept that those who did not follow Jesus would go to heaven because they were good, you'd be laughed at.
Anyway, I'm aware some Christians don't believe that nonChristians go straight to hell. Forgive my lack of qualifiers on the statement, but there are as many different Christians groups as there are areas where you can disagree, within Christianity.
Even the Trinity is not held by all groups, so, well, whatever.
But regardless, Eoywn, many disagree with you, portions of the Bible disagree with you, and while portions do agree, it's funny that the different parts of the Bible get so... contradictory.
How much more contradictory do you get than "The only way is X" or "X is NOT the only way?"
Both cannot be true.
quote: OMeg, it sounds like you'd like to believe in God, but you're angry and frustrated that he hasn't proved himself to exist, so you've stopped believing. Has it ever occurred to you that maybe he is offering proof, but you just won't accept it? I'm actually curious as to what proof you would accept? (this is a serious question, I've never had a good answer for it) Does God have to break his natural laws in order to show his face? Does it have to be shown that the universe as it exists can't do so without some force or guiding principle we'd call God?
Honestly? In that post I was merely responding to the concept. My own feelings of the matter are not quite so angry. There's no god to be angry with, after all, merely humans whose beliefs can be annoying, and in some parts of the world would lead to my death.
There was no anger and no frustration, just an interesting realization: All the prayers I ever gave, all the faith I'd given, every single sign I'd ever seen, were merely my own thoughts, my own interpretations. There was no god there answering, and there never had been.
Further: You assume the universe as it exists can't do so without a God. Based upon what evidence do you hold that assumption?
Based upon what evidence, further, do you hold God in the first place? Existence itself, btw, is not actually evidence in and of itself of any god, but merely of existence.
And even if you could prove that a god existed, based upon what evidence would you hold that it is the god you worship?
That, I think, would be even harder than proving the existence of a god in the first place.
As for evidence I'd actually believe?
How about God doing something unambiguous, like, say, I dunno, what he does in the stories in the Bible all the time.
You know, where large groups tended to see things unambiguously miraculous all the time.
If he could do it for Lisa's people, further, if he could show Thomas Christ's wounds, he can do it for me. Nothing's changed, nothing's stopping your god now, no magic spell has been cast to stop your god from doing what he supposedly used to do.
But it's funny, isn't it, that these events all happened long ago, and your god's lack of similar miracles in the modern age has to be attributed, by some groups, to a change of policy or somesuch.
quote: The very things that make us human? No, sins are a perversion of the things that make us human. We are built to be attracted to the opposite sex (or same sex, whatever) but the sin comes in having the pleasure of sex without the pleasures of love and commitment. The sin is not the the human desire for sex, but the unrestrained, ridiculously overblown desire for sex. Wanting to eat good food is also something we're programmed for, but if we only eat one thing that tastes best to us and constantly eat that one thing, it's a disgusting perversion of the pleasures of food.
Did Christ not say that looking after a woman in lust was the same as adultery?
That's one example. Our brains, our bodies, are designed to do such a thing.
If doing so is a sin, and human beings, as it has been shown, do so due to their very design, then we are designed sinful. Thus, what I said above.
So. Are you going to disagree with your Christ?
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
quote:So. Are you going to disagree with your Christ?
I think using religion as a weapon is a really, really bad idea.
It bothers me when someone quotes scripture, interprets, and then bludgeons someone with it.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
0Megabyte, you have an erroneous and simplistic idea of Scripture*.
Stop thinking of it as all one, big, book. It is a collection of people writing about their experiences with God. From their own particular contexts. Letters, stories, poems, songs, prophecy, "how-to" manuals..."
Of course, some writers are going to contradtict other writers. We don't all have the same experience. Nor would we all understand and articulate that experience the same way for different audiences.
*edit to add: this is probably not your fault.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
Javert:
Please. Christ says just that and you know it.
Of all the things in the Bible, I'd imagine you'd at least try to listen to what Christ himself is supposed to have said.
Where is the interpretation? I merely pointed out what Christ is supposed to have said. Where am I interpreting?
As for kmboots:
I'm fully aware that the Bible is a large number of separate books.
Of course they contradict each other due to that.
Further, they were not speaking to us, but a fudnamentally different audience. I'm aware of all of this.
Further, that kind of kills much of the idea that it was made by God, is in any way infallible, since it tells you to do contradictory things, oh, and it isn't exactly a coherant source of morals or truth, since you can so easily get a vast range of different contradictory moral lessons from it, to support any viewpoint imaginable.
But, don't Christians have to care what it says? Particularly when Christ himself is supposed to have said something?
Or is the religion of Christianity just picking whatever pieces are convenient, and throwing away the rest whenever the parts disagree?
Posted by Eowyn-sama (Member # 11096) on :
quote: Or is the religion of Christianity just picking whatever pieces are convenient, and throwing away the rest whenever the parts disagree?
I think km has already answered this--you start with a loving God and throw away the bits that don't agree, because we realize that the Bible has been filtered through time and different personal viewpoints and a completely different worldview. You may not agree that God is loving and benevolent, (even a hypothetical God, if you like) but that's how Christians approach it.
I wish I could address some of your other points, but I've gotta get some housework done tonight, so maybe later ^_^
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Eowyn and kmbboots, I get that you both believe in a loving and benevolent God. And I gather from your recent posts (please correct me if I'm wrong, I don't want to put words in your mouth) that you don't believe that rejecting Jesus' saving grace dooms you to eternal damnation. But I'm sure you know that many, many Christians take a harder line and do believe many are damned for that and for a variety of reasons, and that God can be vengeful and judging as well as loving.
Now for the bludgeoning :
quote:Hebrews 10 26-31 26If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, 27but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God. 28Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29How much more severely do you think a man deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God under foot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace? 30For we know him who said, "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," and again, "The Lord will judge his people." 31It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Yup. Sinning when we absolutely know better can really suck. Consequences, guilt that can consume you, fear of being found out...not pretty. Paul paints a vivid picture of this for the Hebrews. Paul was a pretty smart guy, not perfect, but we can learn a lot from him.
What is your point?
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
"A raging fire that will consume the enemies of God." That goes way beyond guilt and fear, all the way to Hell in fact.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
And what, in your knowledge of ancient literary convention, leads to you assume that Paul meant this literally?
Also, Paul, smart guy, inspired guy, not actually God. Nor had he experienced the afterlife.
edit to add: Look, I don't mean to be snarky. I get that you have issues. But we have been over this. Scripture is a collection of writing of inspired people trying to record and share their experience of God and how to be in a relationshi with God as best they can.
[ November 14, 2007, 09:25 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: And what, in your knowledge of ancient literary convention, leads to you assume that Paul meant this literally?
Why should we take anything in the books literally?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Well, some of it is intended to be taken that way. Thousands of years of study, examination, research, contemplation and so forth have been spent on uncovering their meaning.
And there vast stores of untold wisdom and inspiration contained in them about how to be with God and with each other.
But, honestly, unless that is valuable to you, I don't know why you would take any of it any way at all.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
kmbboots, I got the impression that Javert was pointing out the flaws with taking the Bible literally.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Well, some of it is intended to be taken that way. Thousands of years of study, examination, research, contemplation and so forth have been spent on uncovering their meaning.
And there vast stores of untold wisdom and inspiration contained in them about how to be with God and with each other.
But, honestly, unless that is valuable to you, I don't know why you would take any of it any way at all.
Well, I think my question is, who's interpretation are you using to decide what is literal and what is metaphorical? A particular scholar? Yours? How can you know, in either case, if you've come up with the right interpretation?
Don't get me wrong. I think it's great that you believe in a loving, fair and just supreme being. But unless you take a lot of what appears to be written in plain language and justify it away, your view of a loving god doesn't seem to be backed up.
And if you have to justify it so much, what's the point of saying you believe in the book in the first place?
Why not say 'I believe in this type of god because it makes sense to me and I would want god to be like this if I had a choice in the matter.'
Posted by adfectio (Member # 11070) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw:
Orthodox Christian theology holds that Christ spent the time he was dead in hell, not in heaven. And the gates of hell are opened to let people out, not to transfer them in. [/QB]
This may be possible. As I said, I might be wrong. It's been a while since I had heard the idea or even thought about it, so my memory of it had faded.
Posted by Shawshank (Member # 8453) on :
Pretty much all of mainstream Christianity will hold the Ecumenical creeds (Apostle's Creed, Nicene Creed, and that Athanasian creed) to be true, and in the Apostle's creed and the Nicene creed it makes reference to a period of Christ spending time in hell.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
"I think km has already answered this--you start with a loving God and throw away the bits that don't agree, because we realize that the Bible has been filtered through time and different personal viewpoints and a completely different worldview."
Honestly? I have no trouble with that. Forgive me for being, perhaps, more antagonistic than needed towards you.
However, there are vast numbers who would... disagree with your approach. They don't throw away the parts you do, and many others disagree with the act of throwing away a single word.
In fact, some people I know would point out to a phrase in Revelation, warning against such a thing. (Of course, the verse was meaning the book of Revelation itself, and not the entire Bible, that didn't exist as a single collection at the time, but they dismissed this fact when I pointed it out. It was... a depressing day.)
While many of these people would agree that God is good, they'd basically make the word "good" meaningless by merely saying that good means "anything that God does, without question, no matter what he does, even if he decided to copy Hitler for a day, or something." That anything the Bible says God did or said is not only true, but good.
You guys, Eowyn and kmboots, I'm pretty sure you're good people. But too many Christians, even ones that ARE good people, surrender their ability to tell right from wrong when it comes to the Bible, and in fact would willingly commit evil, in some cases, if that is what the Bible instructs.
But there's no guarantee that the people I speak to are like that. Too large a number of Christians out there are not, in fact, anything like you.
But anyway, honestly? That's not anything to do with why I'm an atheist.
It's because of evidence, mainly, not at all any anger. But people supporting evil bothers me, and some things in the Bible are in fact evil, and many Christians support said evil within the Bible, and thus...
Well, anyway.
Posted by Shawshank (Member # 8453) on :
I'm just curious but what would you consider to be evil within the Bible?
-- I apologize for being snarky yesterday- I wasn't in the best of moods.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
Hmm. Good question.
Well, starting with the OT I'd go with the easy bits, such as the genocide and mass murder God commands the Hebrews to do, but then again, the god of those books was a rather different animal than the one most Christians worship.
Ooh. Noah's Ark story includes the destruction of everybody and everything, except an implausibly small number of people an umplausibly short amount of time ago.
Including babies. Babies, friend, drowned in said flood. Luckily, it didn't happen in real life, but the story doesn't exactly say it's the worst thing God did or anything.
Laws that are pretty clearly grossly unjust to the point of ridiculousness (but we all know that humans made said laws, but it's always useful to put a stamp of "God did it" to the laws to give them even more legitimacy.)
The entirety of the book of Job... I mean, it's really a great story, focusing on why bad things happen to good people in the most expressive and heart-wrenching of manners, but holding the god who allowed this as "good" kind of stretches my imagination.
Those are a couple easy ones.
New Testament is a little trickier, of course, but I'm not too keen on the whole "God sacrificing Himself to Himself to save mankind from the wrath of... Himself" thing. But that's more weird and inefficient than evil.
Now, thinking of Jesus as an individual, however, you get into the whole "sacrificing your own son's life (he gets better)for the purpose of forgiving a bunch of people who were condemned by you and the rules you chose, knowing with your omniscience what would happen beforehand (unless you notice the times in the Bible where God acts surprised, of course)" thing. Which I can't really see anyone but God doing this without us noticing it as kind of silly if it weren't so horrible.
And anyway, myriad different ideas and sermons in the letters which I won't list due to my tiredness and faltering coherance. Forgive me, but they aren't too very hard to find. Of course, the writers of the letters certainly weren't God. But some people fail to see a difference, and take it all at face value, as if their most of the time perfectly proper to their own audience values still apply and can still be reasonably considered valid today, when we're at a bit of a higher level of morality and empathy than the old days.
Listing everything would take a long time, so I just kind of skimmed very, very lightly.
Don't think it too bad, there's plenty of things in the Bible that are totally awesome and which I still find quite beautiful and good.
But I won't ignore the bad just to focus on the good. Nor shoulod I ignore the good just to focus on the bad. I suppose I do so more in debate because, well, most of us have read the Bible and we already know the good, and most of the time people focus too much on the good parts anyway, myself included in the past.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
Shawshank - Infinite punishment for finite crimes is one of the most evil doctrines I know of.
(You could turn the above statement into a charge against the death penalty. And I don't have a problem with that. )
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert: Shawshank - Infinite punishment for finite crimes is one of the most evil doctrines I know of.
(You could turn the above statement into a charge against the death penalty. And I don't have a problem with that. )
Agreed.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by rollainm:
quote:Originally posted by Javert: Shawshank - Infinite punishment for finite crimes is one of the most evil doctrines I know of.
(You could turn the above statement into a charge against the death penalty. And I don't have a problem with that. )
Agreed.
It's also interesting to point out that the idea of infinite punishment doesn't appear in the Bible until the New Testament.
So while god did some pretty terrible things in the Old Testament, at least there when you were dead you got to stay dead.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Okay. I give up. You guys have fun misunderstanding stuff and then getting mad about what you think it means.
It is rather annoying (and counter productive to what you claim you want) that you keep perpetuating this error, but you really don't seem to want to actually understand. Just to be outraged and feel superior to people.
Enjoy.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Okay. I give up. You guys have fun misunderstanding stuff and then getting mad about what you think it means.
It is rather annoying (and counter productive to what you claim you want) that you keep perpetuating this error, but you really don't seem to want to actually understand. Just to be outraged and feel superior to people.
Enjoy.
Did it ever occur to you that maybe you could do a better job of explaining what you believe the correct interpretation is?
No one here is stupid. Don't assume it's someone else's fault if they "misunderstand" something.
If anything is counterproductive, it's comments like this. If you give up, fine. But do so respectfully.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Okay. I give up. You guys have fun misunderstanding stuff and then getting mad about what you think it means.
It is rather annoying (and counter productive to what you claim you want) that you keep perpetuating this error, but you really don't seem to want to actually understand. Just to be outraged and feel superior to people.
Enjoy.
What are we misunderstanding, Kmbboots? I think we all understand that you have different interpretations and understandings of what the Bible means. We all have different interpretations and understandings.
All I, or anyone, can do is look at it from our own understanding and see if it makes sense and whether or not it is good. If presented with other interpretations, we can address those.
I'm sorry if this frustrates you. I enjoy this conversation, but if it is angering you or offending you then I understand why you would choose to leave it. Sorry.
I can assume you won't be giving an answer to my earlier question?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
rollainm, I have not called anyone stupid. As a matter of fact I specifically noted that a simplistic understanding of scripture was not 0Megabyte's fault.
quote: All I, or anyone, can do is look at it from our own understanding and see if it makes sense and whether or not it is good. If presented with other interpretations, we can address those
This, for example, is not really true.
Scriptural understanding is complicated. Thousands of books have been written explaining and interpreting scripture. Sometimes whole books on one particular chapter or verse. People who do this seriously need to learn whole other languages. We have centuries, millenia of gathering the wisdom of people who have recorded their inspired understanding of their relationship with God. Human beings with different literary conventions, different cultural outlooks, different science, different languages.
Yet no matter how many times I explain this, the discussion always comes down to taking a verse, out of context, and ripping on how horrible God must be. That God must be evil because Paul (for example) describes the pain of sin as fire. Or reading the Hebrew Scriptures as if they were written by 21st century journalists.
I get that there are people of faith that do this. I don't understand why you would want to do this except that it is so much easier to take potshots at it that way.
And I can understand that. I can. Religion has some serious problems and it is easier to discard it all than really examine it. And far easier to make your case for pitching it if you look at the worst of it. And way more gratifying.
[ November 15, 2007, 01:26 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:And I can understand that. I can. Religion has some serious problems and it is easier to discard it all than really examine it. And far easier to make your case for pitching it if you look at the worst of it. And way more gratifying.
I think you're making an assumption that we haven't really examined it or don't continue to do so.
Just to be clear, I didn't just try to examine it and then chuck it when it got confusing.
I don't think that's what you meant, but I want to be clear about my own position.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
How about this then. Why don't you change roles in this discussion? What 0mb just did was come up with his own examples of evil in the bible.
(by the way, did you catch this at the end of one of his posts:
"But anyway, honestly? That's not anything to do with why I'm an atheist.
It's because of evidence, mainly, not at all any anger. But people supporting evil bothers me, and some things in the Bible are in fact evil, and many Christians support said evil within the Bible, and thus...
Well, anyway."
It seems to me you think he's using these examples to justify his atheism, which he is not. Like he said, that is a separate issue.)
And it's true that his criticism is based on a particular interpretation. So why don't you offer your explanation of whatever passage he's referring to, whatever ideology you feel is important or necessarily true, and then open yourself up for criticism. This way, anything that is objected to will fall within the boundaries of your understanding.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
I'm also in agreement with rollainm. My apologies if making a judgment about something in the bible being evil (or at least how I interpret it is evil) is offensive. There are a number of things in the bible that I find wonderful, moral, and really interesting.
None of that has anything to do with justifying my atheism.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I don't have a problem with any of you being atheist. More power to you. I have little interest in converting you or convincing you.
I do have a problem with perpetuating the idea that Scripture is always either literal or easy or obvious in its meaning. Or that it is the only way to know God that we have available to us.
When you do that, you are aiding the very fundamentlist, right-wing mind set that frightens and disturbs both of us. You do this by assuming the argument on their terms. You let them define what religion means. You give them power.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
"I don't have a problem with any of you being atheist. More power to you. I have little interest in converting you or convincing you."
No one said you did have a problem with their atheism or that you were trying to convert anyone. What we are saying (or at least what I'm saying) is that it appears you believe 0mb and perhaps others are justifying their atheism based on interpretations of evil in the bible. I wanted to make it clear that this is not the case because it seems to me this is what is causing your frustration.
"I do have a problem with perpetuating the idea that Scripture is always either literal or easy or obvious in its meaning. Or that it is the only way to know God that we have available to us."
No one here is saying that.
"When you do that, you are aiding the very fundamentlist, right-wing mind set that frightens and disturbs both of us. You do this by assuming the argument on their terms. You let them define what religion means. You give them power."
So then present the argument in your terms. You are quick to say when someone has "misunderstood" a particular passage or verse, but you have yet to justify this or present your own understanding.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I do have a problem with perpetuating the idea that Scripture is always either literal or easy or obvious in its meaning. Or that it is the only way to know God that we have available to us.
When you do that, you are aiding the very fundamentlist, right-wing mind set that frightens and disturbs both of us. You do this by assuming the argument on their terms. You let them define what religion means. You give them power.
The point of analyzing literalist viewpoints is to expose their flaws. From what I've been able to gather, the people trying to do [what I view as] damage to our society are generally fundamentalist in nature (ex: teaching ID [aka religion] in a science classroom). Their views are fallacious for reasons entirely unrelatedly to belief in God.
I like your beliefs even if I don't agree with all of them. I do share your belief that the Bible is not meant to be interpreted literally.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I believe kate’s point is that an understanding of scripture is not something than can be summed up in a bulletin board web post. It’s something that is lived into and worked out in community. So far when she’s tried to offer the bottom line conclusions of that kind of life-time study she’s been accused of picking what she likes and “throwing out” the rest.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I do have a problem with perpetuating the idea that Scripture is always either literal or easy or obvious in its meaning. Or that it is the only way to know God that we have available to us.
I think the problem is that it's difficult and time consuming to go through everything you say or write and add caveats to please everyone.
So when I speak about a particular line of scripture, what I mean is "This looks like it says 'this'...and if it does say 'this' then it is an evil doctrine", but what I say is "'This' is an evil doctrine." It's simpler to say it that way.
Maybe that's just laziness on my part.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Javert, it is simpler. It is also usually incorrect, since Scripture is usually more complicated than it looks.
I am not a theologian. I have neither the years of education, the knowledge, nor the time to go verse by verse through the Bible explaining the various possible ways to interpret them.
I do know enough to know that it I don't know enough to say, "this means x" without doing a great deal of study. That is the knowledge that I am trying to pass along to you.
I could recommend a couple of books that might give you a glimpse into this if you are interested.
For myself, I (now on purpose channeling St. Augustine) start from the premise of a loving God and figure that if my interpretation of a certain passage doesn't fit that, then I am probably missing something and need to do some investigation.
I don't expect you to do that; you aren't starting from the same premise. But the idea that the meaning in Scripture is clear to anybody who can read is an incorrect and pernicious one that has popped up in the last couple of hundred years. And I believe it is a bad thing. It is too easy to use Scripture to justify anything if one goes about it that way. It is not how Christians have traditionally understood Scripture and it is not how Scripture was intended to be understood.
[ November 15, 2007, 03:44 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
"And I believe it is a bad thing. It is too easy to use Scripture to justify anything if one goes about it that way."
Did you not notice this as being a significant part of my point?
Look, I know you assume God is good from the get go, and thus, of course saying anything that God does is evil will therefore disagree with your interpretation, or holding up the things which were unambiguously evil done within the Bible as things done by God would disagree with you, or whatever.
However, your interpretation is not the only one. Your frustration seems somewhat silly.
Particularly since there's no more evidence for your beliefs than the ones I'm more actively fighting. But that's neither here nor there.
Further, kmboots, my interpretation obviously differs from yours.
I don't assume God is good from the get go.
Assuming your answer is just silly. It makes you biased, and you are actually actively trying to find ways to make your god fit that ideal, even if the book you use does not in fact support it.
I'm well aware how much of the Bible is not ltieral, how much requires interpretation, especially since, duh, it wasn't written for us, the metaphors used, the stories used, the meanings used were focused on a slowly shifting target of Jews over a period of a thousand years or so.
Anyway, the mental gymnastics required to shift something as relatively unambiguous as "Later Jesus appeared to the Eleven as they were eating; he rebuked them for their lack of faith and their stubborn refusal to believe those who had seen him after he had risen. He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. "
into
""Go out and tell people that there is more to being, that we are part of something that goes beyond death. Explain to them about the God of love and that we are to love each other. Give them the opportunity to have new lives with this understanding. Those who don't believe this are condemned to live without this knowledge." "
Or twisting anything else into a doctrine that fits your views in a similarly convoluted manner reminds me of the sort of mental gymnastics Star Trek fans use to deal with contradictions within the story.
Forgive my irriation, but your frustration regardless of what I say, obviously since my interpretation disagrees with yours, regardless of my attempts to be as friendly and clear about it as possible, is actually quite irritating.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
If you forgive my irritation, how about this:
Why do you assume from the get-go that God is good?
Based upon what information do you hold it?
Because nothing about it is required to be true by the world itself, just as gravity is not obligated to work by Newton's laws and doesn't, precisely.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
0Megabyte,
You say that you get my point, but then demonstrate that you are missing it entirely. I really don't know how to make this clearer to you.
Let's take your Star Trek example. Pretend that Star Trek was 2000 years ago. None of the episodes have survived, but over the centuries, fans have written about Star Trek. There are bits of reviews in obscure dead languages, some fan fic, poems that people wrote about the joys of watching Star Trek, records of the commercials, stories that people wrote down from memory, letters to friends telling them about watching Star Trek or a dream that they had about Star Trek.
Now these things may add up to a confusing and contradictory picture of Star Trek. That doesn't mean that Star Trek never existed. People who have watched Star Trek, who have a personal experience of Star Trek are able to put them in perspective.
Does that help?
edit to add: Just out of curiosity, why do you think gravity works?
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Hell is SaudiArabia Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
"Now these things may add up to a confusing and contradictory picture of Star Trek. That doesn't mean that Star Trek never existed. People who have watched Star Trek, who have a personal experience of Star Trek are able to put them in perspective."
No, it doesn't mean Star Trek never existed.
And I'd certainly agree that the Bible holds much that was originally based on historic events, and the very same types of things you talk about occured. I already am aware of that.
But showing the existence of "God", particularly a god with the specific attributes you give to it, requires a bit more than fractures stories, particularly when we see, from tall tales and the like, that stories get less realistic as time goes on, and reach ever closer to fantasy. Take the story of John Henry, and how that blew out of proportion from a truly impressive event to something superhuman in a quite surprisingly short time.
Obviously stuff happened. But based upon what do you hold that the events had anything to do with a supreme being?
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
As for gravity: I don't know all the specifics as I haven't seen the math, and anyway we obviously don't know how it works precisely, since singularities tend to make little sense with our current theories.
But regardless, gravity is not a force in and of itself, but is caused by mass bending spacetime.
Do I know precisely why mass bends spacetime? Not perfectly, but I doubt it was magic, and we've certainly progressed from understanding from the time when we didn't know anything about what caused gravity.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
0Megabyte,
Scripture is a collection of personal stories and so forth that tell us about God. It isn't proof of God's existence.
And I am not talking about describing how gravity works, I am asking why it works.
Why do you associate God with "magic" or the supernatural? I believe that God is present in the everyday, explainable, and natural.
[ November 15, 2007, 05:27 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
A god is supernatural by definition and conscious by common usage. You aren't talking about a god if you aren't talking about the supernatural.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Ah...You're right. I am not talking about a god. I am talking about God. Entirely different.
Posted by Starsnuffer (Member # 8116) on :
How self-righteous of you. I think the reason I have faith in gravity and in the fact that is not magic is because it appears to have a significant say in what happens in the universe, while i'm disinclined to begin trusting something i've never seen create any influence on the universe.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
"Entirely different."
Not at all different.
The only difference is that you believe in it. The god you worship has specific properties, just like all the other myriad gods man has created.
I associate your god with the supernatural because the Christian god is spoken of as supernatural, as doing supernatural things, in creating supernatural realms like heaven and hell, hanging out with supernatural entities like angels, doing supernatural things like causing a virgin woman to give birth to a male son (impossible even in parthenogenesis) and the whole lot of it.
At least, that's the Christian god. Perhaps you believe in something different, which is not unlikely, statistically speaking.
So: Why does gravity work? I spoke as to why: Mass bends spacetime. Why does mass bend spacetime? I don't know precisely, but I'd suggest you ask someone who works in that field. My knowledge is limited, and I don't know calculus, much less more complicated math, so I don't know.
Or, if you're talking about some metaphysical "why", well, I don't know precisely. Perhaps it's random. Maybe there are an infinite number of universes, perhaps something outside the universe caused the rules of the universe to be the way they are, perhaps it's the only way that's physically possible, there are a hundred, a thousand, a million possible reasons why, many of which don't necessarily need a god to make them work.
MAybe there is no reason. Maybe we won't ever know. I don't know "why" in some kind of ultimate way, and it hasn't been proven that there even is a why.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
But what I do know is this:
When I lift up a coin, and let go, it falls down.
Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
This depends on what is natural and what is supernatural.
If "natural" is whatever occurs by a process that can be replicated by humans to examine and test, which constitutes science, then God is supernatural because he cannot be tested. It "natural" is whatever occurs due to consistencies in the functions and laws of the Universe, then God is likely natural, as he is not free to do whatever random thought might occur, but he will not want to do what is against his nature. Therefore, we can say God consists of laws that add up to a nature that can be described: God is benevolent, all-powerful, reluctant to intervene against his creation's ideas, and lonely. This is the nature of God, therefore, God does not supercede nature, but rather IS nature.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Starsnuffer: How self-righteous of you. I think the reason I have faith in gravity and in the fact that is not magic is because it appears to have a significant say in what happens in the universe, while i'm disinclined to begin trusting something i've never seen create any influence on the universe.
How is that self-righteous? There is a big difference between one definition of god (superhuman being with powers) and what I mean when I say God.
0Megabyte, I am not suggesting that you need to be concerned with ultimate "whys". I am suggesting that there is wonder in even ordinary things like gravity working.
Posted by Starsnuffer (Member # 8116) on :
quote:Originally posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer: he is not free to do whatever random thought might occur,
Do you mean he IS? and chooses not to?
Boots, I thought you were indignantly retorting that you were not referring to "just any god" but "YOUR god" as in, saying "well not those darn hindu gods, but my christian one."
I thought you were being more... rude than you were.
Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
I don't think God has the capability to do ANYTHING, simply because his nature governs his choices. Of course, if God revoked a certain aspect of his nature, which he probably can do if he is able to construct a new aspect (i.e. Jesus), he could change the way that works, but pretty much rule #1 concerning God is that he sticks to his promises. Revoking that would contradict God's nature and therefore break a promise, which God cannot do. So God chose to be in a state of not-really omnipotence, but retain the power to make everything go his way no matter what anyone else says. (What I mean to say is: There are things God cannot do, but there is nothing that can go against God's will.) God has a consistent pattern that he generally follows, and this suggests that he sticks to his nature even more than people do to their own personalities.
So I mean he is NOT free to do whatever random thought might occur BECAUSE he chooses not to.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
"I am suggesting that there is wonder in even ordinary things like gravity working. "
I'm aware, and I feel plenty of wonder at that, and everything else in the universe, all the time.
But feeling wonder at how cool our universe is doesn't have much to do with God.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
starsnuffer,
Oh...no. I wasn't. My fault for not being clearer. For me, "God" is bigger than, Jehovah, or Vishnu, or Osiris. All of those "god" stories are people trying to express a personal relationship with "God". I believe that the Christian stories express that relationship in the best way because of Jesus, but there is certainly truth about God to be found elsewhere.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Ah...You're right. I am not talking about a god. I am talking about God. Entirely different.
God is a god by common usage. While it's fine for you to use your own definition in a case like this, you should make that clear in your posts. It's rather hypocritical to get upset at people for misunderstanding your posts when your using an uncommon definition.
EDIT: Naturally I post right after you do Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Threads, I wasn't upset. I don't agree though that it is an uncommon definition. Most of the people with whom I discuss God understand it the same way I do.
I generally make the distinction by the use of a capital G. If it is problematic, I am happy, for the purposes of this discussion, to refer to God as the Divine. I have done that before. Would that help?
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
Now that I know what you're saying that's not necessary. Anyways, I generally use God with a capital G when talking about the Christian/Jewish god so that's probably why I found it confusing.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
God is bigger than our understanding of God. Does that make sense?
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: God is bigger than our understanding of God. Does that make sense?
So you've defined god in such a way that god can't be understood, and therefore can't be defined...so why should we go with your definition?
I'm not trying to be difficult, it just seems like a contradiction.
Posted by Shawshank (Member # 8453) on :
I think kmb is saying that God cannot be held within our understanding. We can understand some of God's nature- but certainly not at all, maybe not even most.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: God is bigger than our understanding of God. Does that make sense?
So you've defined god in such a way that god can't be understood, and therefore can't be defined...so why should we go with your definition?
I'm not trying to be difficult, it just seems like a contradiction.
I second Javert's critique here, but I'm also curious exactly how one comes to understand that "God is bigger than our understanding of God." So my answer would be no, it doesn't make sense, not to me anyway (not that you were asking me, but there you go).
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Hmmm...do you find it far-fetched that the Creator of the universe, the infinite source of everything, the loving and creative spirit that is present in all of creation and in all of us, that has and always will be, that moves the stars and shapes the mountains - more importantly designed the natural laws that move the stars and shape the mountains, that is the natural laws that move the stars and shape the mountains, that being/force/energy/ that still loves us intimately and desires to be with us, that God is beyond our ability to entirely comprehend?
I find that pretty reasonable.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Hmmm...do you find it far-fetched that the Creator of the universe, the infinite source of everything, the loving and creative spirit that is present in all of creation and in all of us, that has and always will be, that moves the stars and shapes the mountains - more importantly designed the natural laws that move the stars and shape the mountains, that is the natural laws that move the stars and shape the mountains, that being/force/energy/ that still loves us intimately and desires to be with us, that God is beyond our ability to entirely comprehend?
I find that pretty reasonable.
True. But if it really was beyond our ability to entirely comprehend, why would we be assuming it's existence in the first place?
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
I think it's possible in the way that anything is possible, but I don't think it's necessarily reasonable, certainly not probable. What are your reasons for believing this is true rather than not?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Lots of reasons, I guess. Most importantly, I think that God reaches out to us.
Not always through religion; in fact, sometimes religion can be an obstacle, but God reaches out to us.
Maybe because we want to know who to thank?
edit: that was originally to Javert, but I suppose it answers both. And, really, you can get your head around "infinite"?
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
Well, first of all, don't you see how circular your reasons are (at least as you've presented them here), particularly as an answer to Javert's question?
As for your question, theoretically, yes. Infinite is a concept defined by us in the first place. If anything, it poses problems for the existence of any god, including your God (although, to be perfectly honest, I'm still not entirely sure what your distinction is).
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Well, yes. If I believe in a God that is by nature "bigger" than I can understand than of course I am not going to completely understand God.
So I should pretend God is smaller so that I can understand it?
Again, I am not trying to convince you of anything. I just want to make clear what it is that I believe.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:And, really, you can get your head around "infinite"?
No, I can't. Which is exactly why I don't make any assumptions about it.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
"Again, I am not trying to convince you of anything. I just want to make clear what it is that I believe."
Is there a difference? Honestly, I want you to want to convince me. It means you have a stake in this, that you truly want me to understand what you believe.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Convince you of what? "Stake" in what? This conversation? Your faith? I have plenty of "stake" in my faith; I have very little in yours. As far as I am concerned, you are welcome to whatever you want to believe. If you are happy, I see no reason you should change.
As for understanding what it is that believe, I don't necessarily think that is possible given the amount of time I am willing to invest. I spend months teaching people an incomplete version of what I believe.
I will settle for you understanding some of the more common errors you are making about not just my beliefs, but those of many people. That would be plenty for an internet conversation.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
Well, I disagree, obviously. And I think most of those who contribute to this particular forum would disagree with you as well. We Hatrackers pride ourselves in our ability, dedication, and passion to go beyond the boundaries of a typical internet conversation and to actually learn something from one another, to gain a better understanding of varying perspectives, to even be willing to change our minds in light of compelling enough evidence. Or at least that's what I feel the general consensus is. Perhaps this perception of mine is flawed.
At any rate, I think this discussion, atleast with you, has reached an end. Of course, it does remain open should you ever feel compelled to take it up, or to participate if it shows up in future conversations. I hope that you will. In the meantime, please understand that it is not my intention, nor do I believe it is the intention of others here, to show you up or expose your flaws to the world. My conviction that you are most likely wrong about one belief or another does not limit my ability or desire to understand an alternate perspective or to have a civilized debate concerning said perspective, nor does it compromise my ability to change my mind. But also keep in mind that at the same time I will not back down from my own understanding without compelling evidence. And your (as of yet) unjustified claim that an interpreted passage of the bible as evil is misunderstood, among other assertions, simply isn't compelling in the least.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
So what have you learned in this boundary bending discussion, roll? It's funny how it's always the other person's mind that needs to be opened.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
My mind certainly does need to be opened more. I realize this more and more all the time, especially on this forum because I can go back and read exactly what I've said. A prime example of this is a discussion I participated in well over a year ago on the topic of "egotheism". Go ahead and search for it. I'm rather embarrassed of my ignorance in that thread, but there it is. I learned from that, though, and that's what's important. I'm capable of realizing that I can be wrong about something I think I completely understand.
As for what I've learned in this particular discussion? Well, not as much as I'd have wanted. I learned something I think, even a little about boots' perspective. Not a whole lot, maybe not even anything significant, but it's something.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
rollainm, it is really not my place to try to convert you. Nor would it fall within my understanding of the terms of services. And I feel no need to do so.
However, if you feel a need, if you are looking for something and just need more information, if you are interested in being converted, I am willing to spend some with you in exploring this further.
Feel free to PM me and we can talk about it.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
The evolved philosophy of the majority of the members of this forum that I'm talking about has little to do with the ToS. If you don't feel the same way, then that's fine. I can respect that, even though it can certainly make some discussions a bit more difficult.
Obviously I'm not interested in "being converted". I think you know that. I am interested in learning different perspectives, particularly those as intriguing as yours seems to be. You say there are many who believe in God the way you do, and I believe you, but to me this is something new.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
rollainm,
I would have been surprised, but then I'm not really sure what you are asking when you ask me to "convince" you? How is trying to change your mind about the existance of God, not trying to convert you?
I'm happy to explain whatever I can, given that the explainations are, by the nature of the subject, going to be only the tip of the iceberg, but I think I need some clarification of what you are asking.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:The god you worship has specific properties...
I think you'll find that, for Kate, this is not true. The more you poke her God, the squishier it is.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Tom, I don't think your poking actually changes the nature of God.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Okay. I'll revise it to say "the more you poke her God, the squishier you realize it is." Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
God is a koosh ball? I knew it! Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Now these things may add up to a confusing and contradictory picture of Star Trek. That doesn't mean that Star Trek never existed. People who have watched Star Trek, who have a personal experience of Star Trek are able to put them in perspective.
by recognizing it as a fictional work, though.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Samprimary,
You may be missing the point of the analogy. I wasn't equating Star Trek with Scripture; I was equating the extra stuff people had written about Star Trek with Scripture.
Tom, that's better. Depending on how you define "squishy" of course, but better. Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Mmmm, squishy gods...*drools*
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
This goes back a ways, but:
quote:Did Christ not say that looking after a woman in lust was the same as adultery?
That's one example. Our brains, our bodies, are designed to do such a thing.
If doing so is a sin, and human beings, as it has been shown, do so due to their very design, then we are designed sinful. Thus, what I said above.
My husband used to wonder at the "He can't be serious" attitude the guys at church generally had for this passage.
I've thought a lot about the idea of Original Sin. I know Mormons generally just say we don't believe in it, but we also believe all sin and require redemption.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
) ![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
: