[ March 22, 2008, 03:57 AM: Message edited by: the_Somalian ]
Posted by JonHecht (Member # 9712) on :
Who said we assume god is good? I've commented to other philosophy people before that even if the Christian God does exist, I wouldn't worship him, because it seems to me that he is evil.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I feel much the same. I'm interested by the assertion, I forget now where I may have picked it up, that if the devil ever succeeded in taking God's place, he would be forced to act in God's stead, and do all that God would have done. This is an interesting idea, at least for this athiest, because I already believe that the role of a God is created and filled in the imagination- so a God by any name is the same thing, or the lack of the same thing.
It's like that very consistent and absurd Christian insistence on using the bible as a moral or philosophical guide- when the bible has such a very, very poor track record in that department. It reminds me why advertising accounts largely for box office movie sales... the whole part about art and deep thinking and creativity is less important to the masses.
But then, I am lately thinking that appealing to the masses as an indication of what really "works" or what is feisable in our own lives is also good money chasing bad. Think about it, don't invest your heart in it, and you will be rewarded with useful insight. This Christian society some of us claim to live in is also engaged in a number of horrifically grotesque activities at home and abroad. That and we have millenia long history of bloody conflict presided over by Christians, or deists of all denominations. So I think that tells you something you should know- I don't remember a war of atheism from my history classes, unless you include communism, which is just about on par with religion in my book.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
Well. Believing in an evil god is generally a proposition fewer of us would stand behind.
Such an entity certainly wouldn't be worshiped in the way people worship Yahweh nowadays.
In any event, the only sort of god I'd stand behind is a good one. Well, whatever that means.
Posted by Ginol_Enam (Member # 7070) on :
Well, he's not a tame lion...
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Agreed, if God were evil, how could I continue to worship him?
It is actually pretty easy to discount the entire line of reasoning, and although I did not read the article, I'm sure it did not adequately address this: Supposing God exists, and God is as he is commonly defined (the Creator of Existence), then all the beauty of this world, be it art and music, or love and charity, and self-sacrifice, would be his creation. Therefore, even if the argument could be made that all the horrors of the world were the result of God, one could not honestly state that God was evil, because goodness could not be the product of something that was evil.
Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
Why do we assume that God is good?
Because...
This is cool. I'm cool. You're cool. We're all cool. It's all good. Life is good. Dew is good. Everything's good. Yeah.
More rational posts to follow...
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:goodness could not be the product of something that was evil
Why not?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
IMO were God evil and all powerful, then there is no way we could predict much less influence his behavior, and so it behooves us to just try to not piss him off so that at least mortality goes by as peacefully as possible.
I think few if anyone assumes God is good. I think people consider the universe we are in and conclude that God is more likely good than evil. I for one think that as my knowledge of things increases my capacity and desire to be good also increases. Hence God knowing everything rightfully concludes that to be good is the best course.
Posted by Dr Strangelove (Member # 8331) on :
My rational (and I know it's not entirely logically sound), and I will say as well that I haven't read the article but am just posting in the moment, is that God is good because he defines good. If God is more powerful than me and more wise than me (prerequisites for my belief in Him), than it makes sense that the decisions he makes will be and are better than mine. Basically, God is all powerful and all knowing, I am not. So it seems pretty ridiculous for me to look at what happens and say "This is right/good, that is wrong/evil". My perspective is incredibly limited.
So when I say that He is good because He defines good, I mean that just because I see something which according to me is bad does not mean that I immediately assign blame to God, saying "You obviously messed up big guy". I think that if God means for something to be good, I'm not going to contradict Him.
I know, it's a simplistic and logically (and likely theologically) flawed way of looking at things, and I'm really in the middle of a lot of internal theological debates right now, so this is liable to change, but as of right now this is what makes sense to me. Posted by Dr Strangelove (Member # 8331) on :
quote: In so far as the world works, it follows that its creator must be good at creating worlds
This part reminded me of the very beginning of "Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy", where it says something along the lines of "everyone regarded God creating the world as a big mistake, as everyone was miserable". I probably butchered that part, but it's what it reminded me of.
The article also made me think of this guy named John Piper (who has at least one thread on here devoted to one of ... less intelligent moments) who basically says that the purpose of God is not to make humanity happy, but rather to bring glory to Himself. It's more complicated than that, but I'd just thought I'd throw it out there.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
The thing I find mystifying is how educated, intelligent people (of which we have a few) can believe that "my religion is the only way". Now how's that? If that were true, why would the Muslim versus Christian conflicts have gone the way they did? Why would they continue to go the way they go? Sometimes the Muslims have won, sometimes the Christians. Every single sect of Christianity/Islam/you name it, is heir to the same physical laws and laws of probability. If you tend to fight in wars, or do other physically dangerous things, you tend to be more likely to die that way. If you have lots of unprotected sex, you tend to be at risk for STDs. If you eat poor-quality food, you're likely to have health problems from that. All in all, it looks to me like agnostics armed with a good understanding of these types of facts would probably be in a lot better shape, on average, than an extremely devout member of any religion.
Which is why I don't bother belonging to a church. I'm not against the more open-minded churches, but I'd have to believe that my life would somehow be magically better because I joined such a church. I think the historical evidence shows that awareness of the facts of the universe (there are plenty besides what I've listed, for sure) is probably a lot more useful than being a fundamentalist of any type. IOW...why should I be a fanatic about anything that I don't have proof of? I admit that I've not always been the best proponent of non-fanaticism.
I'm not saying that subjective knowledge isn't something you should listen to. We wouldn't have or enjoy great art/music/literature without subjective awareness. However, I think that it's important to save your fanaticism for moments when it's really warranted. Resh's silly ranting about YEC is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. He's smart, he's been to college, he (and the other Young Earthers here) should know better.
I'm not saying fundamentalist types don't have some temporary advantages. They seem to have lower divorce rates, probably lower rates of drug/alcohol addiction, and lower rates of STDs. However, fundamentalism invites huge wars that kill millions. Sheeple will point and shoot if you tell them to.
Posted by Uprooted (Member # 8353) on :
I know that I don't speak for everyone, but I think that most who believe in a benevolent God do so because a) they were taught to believe in such a god and b) because they have had some personal experience in their life that reinforces those teachings.
It's not based on logic: if there is a god, he must be good. It's based on the effects of faith, which are difficult to describe to the unbeliever, but very real to the believer.
quote: It's like that very consistent and absurd Christian insistence on using the bible as a moral or philosophical guide- when the bible has such a very, very poor track record in that department.
The Bible can be very confusing and sends a lot of mixed messages -- but I think it has actually been a very effective moral guide for many who have made a deep study of it. Are the Ten Commanddments really so awful? The Golden Rule? Just because anyone can twist an ideal or teaching and use it for evil purposes does not mean that the ideal is wrong. Those who sincerely try to apply the overall messages of the Bible have made the world a better place. I totally disagree that it has a poor track record just because some fanatics and hypocrites have twisted it to their own purposes.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
I yet have to read a "God is an evil bully, and here's why:" essay that contains anything even slightly resembling the God I love and worship.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
The carnage in the Holy Land.
There are three conclusions:
1. God is a jerk. 2. He doesn't exist. 3. He doesn't give a shite, and probably never will. Fix your own problems.
Seriously, what kind of a God would let three groups of people kill in his name for thousands of years, in the same place?
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"I totally disagree that it has a poor track record..."
It's track record is, IMO, not any better than that of the Quran. If you think it is better, I would suggest you check out how much more enlightened and non-fundamentalist Muslims were (than Christians) in the Middle Ages. Islam might be the more-fundy religion of the two NOW, but that hasn't always been true. Overpopulation has a lot to do with this, IMHO.
Posted by Uprooted (Member # 8353) on :
The kind who granted freedom to act to his children and will not retract it.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Yeah, and the the same God must not think Christianity is any better than Islam.
Posted by Uprooted (Member # 8353) on :
As I recall, Christians didn't have access to the Bible during the Middle Ages.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"As I recall, Christians didn't have access to the Bible during the Middle Ages."
Like I said before, sometimes the Christians win, sometimes the Muslims win. Muslims used to be the more literate, now Christians are. There is no clear winner, there never has been, and common sense will tell you there probably never will be.
God favors neither, if he exists.
Posted by Uprooted (Member # 8353) on :
My point was, you can't blame the unenlightened behavior of Christians in the Middle Ages on their use of the Bible as a moral compass (the original point I was addressing), because they were denied access to it. I have no problem saying that the so-called Christian leaders at the time were corrupt and not following the Bible at all. I also think that the Muslims bent on violence are similarly corrupting the teachings of their Koran, which, just as the Bible, contains an overall message of peace and good living.
Anyway, their are many more religions than Muslim and Christian, and yes, I do happen to believe that all are the children of the God I happen to worship, and that he loves all of us and deplores it when we hate each other.
But I admit that he stories in the Old Testament of a God who commanded his children to go wipe out whole peoples are confusing at best, and I understand why nonbelievers would be put off and horrified by that, and why even believers can be turned from their belief because of it. I think that the Crusaders were not driven by religious fervor at all, but by lust for riches and power and used those stories as an excuse. And yes, I think we're seeing some of it in our own time, too.
However, can we really discount the Bible's effectiveness as a moral guide to the millions of people who have lived quietly, trying to be good to their families and neighbors because that is what the Bible teaches that God wants?
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"However, can we really discount the Bible's effectiveness as a moral guide to the millions of people who have lived quietly, trying to be good to their families and neighbors because that is what the Bible teaches that God wants?"
Replace "Bible" with "Koran" or "Tao Te Ching" or "Talmud" or "Upanishads" or "Diamond Sutra". It is much the same, is it not?
That's not to say that I totally agree with all the teachings in those religions. I think there's a time and place for this, that, and the other.
I still think overpopulation/fundamentalism are the real issues. Ignorance will screw you big-time, I think we all agree. Overpopulation is a cause and an effect of ignorance. It's a cycle. Ignorance is where you stop it, through education. Education must, of needs, include awareness of other religions and their histories.
Posted by Uprooted (Member # 8353) on :
quote:Replace "Bible" with "Koran" or "Tao Te Ching" or "Talmud" or "Upanishads" or "Diamond Sutra". It is much the same, is it not?
For Koran or Talmud, yes, I'd agree. Not familiar enough with the others to weigh in, but if the moral of their stories/teaching is also basically "do good, be kind, be true to something higher than yourself" then yes, I'd also agree.
However, do you really think that negates my point? All I was saying is that the Bible shouldn't be roundly villified as a poor moral guide because it has been twisted to justify the selfish goals of some. I'd say that the same can be said of any moral or philosophical work. There are going to be just as many, if not more, people who fail to live up to the ideals they profess as those who succeed.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"Not familiar enough with the others to weigh in..."
This, in a general sense, is the problem. Ignorance is the problem. The only case in which I'd say otherwise would be with the Amish. They'll never be sending their 3rd, 4th, and 5th sons off to war, to continue the cycle of ignorance/overpopulation/war/devastation. They are still heir to the problems of poor diet, but they do manage to avoid a high divorce rate, alcholism, excessive drug use, and STDs.
This is why I say, aware agnostics are better off than ignorant believers, pretty much no matter what. I am an agnostic, and I have a much better idea of what the Upanishads, the Diamond Sutra, the Tao Te Ching, and other such books say than the average believer. I am far less likely to have 8 kids and send the younger sons off to war, because I know history and religion.
Posted by MattB (Member # 1116) on :
It seems to me that simply dismissing the narratives of the Old Testament as proof that God either 1)is evil or 2)must not exist because no good God would do such things problematic, for three reasons.
1)As has been pointed out, such stories are _vastly_ outweighed in the Old Testament by commandments to live virtuously, to take care of the poor, etc. The Golden Rule actually appears in Deuteronomy.
2)It partakes of the fundamentalist assumption that the Old Testament is first, a historically accurate description of the events its describes, second, that it purports to be this, and third, that every word and narrative in the Bible is of equal spiritual and religious application.
Of course, Christianity from the beginning has denied the last of these; it has also, in many of its manifestations, denied the first two. You will find many - perhaps most - Christians in the world today subscribe to the notion that the narratives of divinely ordered violence in the Old Testament either 1)do not accurately describe the participation of God in them or 2)reflect a particular stage in the spiritual development of humanity; a development that we trace through the Old Testament, from the tribal God of Exodus through the universal God of Isaiah, a trend that culminated in Christ, the perfect revelation of God.
3)You may not like this or find it convincing. Fair. Say, on the other hand, that the stories of the conquest of Israel are accurate. Why is this so repulsive? This is not to deny that there appears to be some contradiction between the Old and New Testament, but this sort of complaint always strikes me as somewhat historically contingent. We're Westerners in the 21st century; we've been conditioned to believe many things. Among these things are the idea that religion should be therapeutic - that it should uphold our secular values of personal, individual expression, rather than demanding that we conform to group standards; that its first priority should be making us feel good about ourselves and personally worthwhile; and that it should not tell us what is right or wrong, but rather should affirm our individual consciences.
Put simply, this emasculates God. It means that we will only accept a God who tells us what we already believe, who affirms rather than prophesies. It's also the impulse behind the 'spiritual-but-not-religious' movement; what sociologist Robert Bellah describes as 'Sheliaism,' from his interview with a woman named Sheila who claimed to build her own faith, taking what she liked from a variety of traditions.
Oddly enough, this is not the God of the Torah, or the New Testament, or the Koran, or the Book of Mormon, or the Bhagavad Gita. It's something new in religion.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"It's also the impulse behind the 'spiritual-but-not-religious' movement; what sociologist Robert Bellah describes as 'Sheliaism,' from his interview with a woman named Sheila who claimed to build her own faith, taking what she liked from a variety of traditions.
Oddly enough, this is not the God of the Torah, or the New Testament, or the Koran, or the Book of Mormon, or the Bhagavad Gita. It's something new in religion."
I bet you celebrate Easter, Matt. I bet you celebrate Christmas, too, you big hypocrite.
Seriously, syncretism is almost as old as religion itself.
Dude, that was almost too easy.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
A conversation I just had with Luna 9, who is my daughter:
Me: "Man people sure are ignorant."
Luna 9: "How are they ignorant?"
Me: *explains the ridiculous ignorance of Young Earth Biblical Literalists celebrating the Pagan holidays that became Christmas and Easter*
Luna 9: "You sure can suck the religion out of somebody!"
Posted by Shawshank (Member # 8453) on :
Unless of course you turn the celebration into something religious. Just because at one historical point pagan holidays were on the same day that the Christians used their holidays- does not mean that they are now Pagan. Easter is based off the timing of the passover and therefore the crucifixion and to the Sunday afterwards the Resurrection.
It is now a religious holiday.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
My point was that it's a little funny that Young Earth Creationist Biblical Literalists celebrate Christmas and Easter. This is appropriate to Luna's situation because my parents attend such a church, and they take her from time to time. Luna has actually been taught to believe that Adam and Eve were the first humans, until I disabused her of such a ridiculous idea.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Getting back to the original question, a lot of the theists seem to be saying "My god must be good because if it weren't, I wouldn't worship it, which I do, so therefore...". Which is circular.
Posted by MattB (Member # 1116) on :
steven, I'm not sure why you seem to think I'm a young earth creationist; my only explanation is that it appears you believe that all Christians are. This is a simplistic stereotype that I'd encourage you to drop if you want to have a worthwhile conversation with intelligent people.
Anyhow, your point about syncretism is tangential to my larger argument, which you did not address. I'll assume you have nothing to say about it.
But, if you'd like, let's talk about syncretism. Unfortunately, your examples of Christian use of 'pagan' holidays don't actually prove your point, which, though it's somewhat hard to grasp, seems to be that Christianity is itself a thin veneer on 'pagan' faith traditions. You haven't proven this; indeed, you'd have to demonstrate that early Christians did not take previous holidays and invest them with their own previously existing meanings, in the same ways that Navajo tribes took the crucifix and transformed it into a symbol of rain.
In short, you seem to be incorrectly understanding 'syncretism' - which is the melding of two cultural traditions, the adaptation of symbol and metaphor from one culture - with something else. And further, you seem to be misreading me and Bellah.
Historically, religious syncretism is the blending of two previously existing faith systems through cultural contact and often evangelism. What's going on in America today is related to the rise of a consumer culture, in which the faith traditions are through the lens of the marketplace, and in which the truth claims of each are rejected in favor of individualized concerns about personal fulfillment. This is syncretism, yes, but it's happening on a different scale, and for different reasons, than your counterexamples.
There are historical examples of this particular type - the development of folk magic is one - but the particular confluence of historical processes Bellah observes is, I think, unique.
Posted by Uprooted (Member # 8353) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Getting back to the original question, a lot of the theists seem to be saying "My god must be good because if it weren't, I wouldn't worship it, which I do, so therefore...". Which is circular.
You're leaving out a step, KoM. What I was saying (can't speak for anyone else) is that I have had personal experiences which, for me, reinforce what I've been taught about God being good. Nope, can't prove that--if you haven't had the same experiences then I don't blame you at all for not believing; I probably wouldn't either. Nope, it's not purely logical.
And steven, I don't happen to agree that not knowing as many sacred texts of other religions as you do makes me ignorant. You are free to disagree. ;-)
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Uprooted:
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Getting back to the original question, a lot of the theists seem to be saying "My god must be good because if it weren't, I wouldn't worship it, which I do, so therefore...". Which is circular.
You're leaving out a step, KoM. What I was saying (can't speak for anyone else) is that I have had personal experiences which, for me, reinforce what I've been taught about God being good. Nope, can't prove that--if you haven't had the same experiences then I don't blame you at all for not believing; I probably wouldn't either.
And yet, if you believe as most Christians do, your god will nonetheless hold that lack of belief against me. This is good? A further point: If you had not been taught that your god is good, you would not have taken your experiences as confirming that. Evidence that depends on your prior is not evidence; it's usually circular reasoning.
Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: "As I recall, Christians didn't have access to the Bible during the Middle Ages."
Like I said before, sometimes the Christians win, sometimes the Muslims win. Muslims used to be the more literate, now Christians are. There is no clear winner, there never has been, and common sense will tell you there probably never will be.
God favors neither, if he exists.
Let's figure out what we all mean by "win." If "win" is who conquers the other, it looks like the Jews were continuously the winners throughout the Old Testament for a couple thousand years, but I don't think that's what anyone here means.
If "win" is who has the most adherents, you could argue Islam (the fastest growing religion in the world) or Christianity (the religion with the most people who profess their faith in it). Islam is mostly growing the fastest because they are making a lot of babies; whereas Christianity has been sustained significantly in part because of missionary work from the time of the Apostle Paul to Dr. Livingstone. (Yes, Constantine and the British Empire helped, but those were political; it took religious fervor to actually spread Christianity through these.)
If "win" is which religion is perceived by Western civilization to have the greatest adherence to universal secular, but not necessarily atheistic, values, the winner is probably Buddhism.
If "win" is which religion holds the best simple code for moral being, I'd argue Christianity, which is guided more by the Gospels and the letters of the early church than the code of the Old Testament (which is explained by itself; Paul and Jesus and most of the apostles were all advocates for change in religious interpretation, saying the time of sacrifice is done and the battle to be waged in God's name is only the Great Commission. The New Testament announces a change from the old traditions that are cited by atheists attempting to discredit the Bible.
If "win" is literacy, there are no clear winners. But I'm sure there are people in the world who are capable of being good people and good Christians without having read a word in their life. But since the Bible and other religious texts started being produced with the intent of allowing anyone who wants to be able to possess a copy of Scripture for themselves, literacy hasn't been at all suppresses by modern religions, especially Christianity.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"steven, I'm not sure why you seem to think I'm a young earth creationist; my only explanation is that it appears you believe that all Christians are. This is a simplistic stereotype that I'd encourage you to drop if you want to have a worthwhile conversation with intelligent people."
There are plenty of Young Earthers here. Many of them are very intelligent, with advanced degrees. You...just...called...them...stupid. It's not a simplistic sterotype. It's a fact. Hatrack's rife with them. Rife, I tell you! Rife!
Seriously, here's a list:
Ron Lambert Lisa Farmgirl Reshpeckobiggle
There's more, I'm sure. All 4 are highly intelligent. All have at least bachelor's degrees. None, with the possible exception of Resh, are idiots when it comes to science, or anything close to being idiots.
I was raised with this belief system, but I had to square it with geological evidence. In the fight between dinosaur bones, radiocarbon dating, other forms of dating, and sedimentation versus YEC...the YEC folks lost out, for me.
See, for you, it's not a choice between a tremendously ignorant childhood religion and agnosticism/atheism. However, I think you can see that it is for me. Why? Because you believe a great many of the things that I was raised to believe, except for the YEC stuff. You, in my mind, are guilty by association. I'm not saying you're wrong about the things you agree with them on...but I gotta see evidence. I ain't taking squat on faith any more. I got burned already. Can you see why I feel that way? I think you can.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"Let's figure out what we all mean by "win.""
I mean "controls the Middle East." and/or "becomes the dominant faith on planet Earth, so that the others disappear completely."
Neither of those two will ever happen. Common sense tells you that.
Posted by maui babe (Member # 1894) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: Many of them are very intelligent, with advanced degrees. You...just...called...them...stupid.
He really didn't you know.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"He really didn't you know."
That's true. He implied that being a Young Earth Creationist is incompatible with being intelligent.
Wait, that's the same thing.
Posted by MattB (Member # 1116) on :
quote:There are plenty of Young Earthers here. Many of them are very intelligent, with advanced degrees. You...just...called...them...stupid. It's not a simplistic sterotype.
I said that assuming all Christians are young earth creationists is a simplistic stereotype. This has nothing to do with the intelligence levels of the people involved. It's a fallacy of argument and the arguer, not a description of the persons under consideration. Saying that, say, all martial artists are Asian or all Russians communists is the same sort of fallacy. Frankly, I find it kind of hard to misread.
Indeed, you're the one arguing that they have an "ignorant belief system." I bet I've read more fundamentalist theology than you have, and there's no question it's often internally consistent and demonstrates a great deal of careful thinking - indeed, rationality is a primary fundamentalist virtue. Lewis Chafer and J. Gresham Machen are no intellectual slouches.
The question is not about stupidity or intelligence; rather, it's about from what premises one proceeds.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Ron Lambert Lisa Farmgirl Reshpeckobiggle
There's more, I'm sure. All 4 are highly intelligent.
Sigh... It's really not very nice to make statements that one cannot disagree with without skirting the forum rules. Nonetheless, I disagree. All are very skilled at avoiding direct questions, ignoring evidence, and cherry-picking authorities to argue from. This is not the same as intelligence.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote from MattB:
"The question is not about stupidity or intelligence; rather, it's about from what premises one proceeds."
Did you catch what I said already? Let me repost it, maybe it got lost in the shuffle:
quote from me--"I was raised with this belief system, but I had to square it with geological evidence. In the fight between dinosaur bones, radiocarbon dating, other forms of dating, and sedimentation versus YEC...the YEC folks lost out, for me.
See, for you, it's not a choice between a tremendously ignorant childhood religion and agnosticism/atheism. However, I think you can see that it is for me. Why? Because you believe a great many of the things that I was raised to believe, except for the YEC stuff. You, in my mind, are guilty by association. I'm not saying you're wrong about the things you agree with them on...but I gotta see evidence. I ain't taking squat on faith any more. I got burned already. Can you see why I feel that way? I think you can."
Would you like to speak to that? I don't think you can. I think you haven't because you can't.
Posted by MattB (Member # 1116) on :
Speak to what? That you're not taking anything on faith?
Fair enough. Your rationality is one based on empirical evidence. You have good company. I don't think that means you're stupid; however, neither do I believe that yours is the only way of knowing.
I'm honestly not sure what you're asking; indeed, this entire conversation seems characterized by non sequiturs.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Ron Lambert Lisa Farmgirl Reshpeckobiggle
There's more, I'm sure. All 4 are highly intelligent.
Sigh... It's really not very nice to make statements that one cannot disagree with without skirting the forum rules. Nonetheless, I disagree. All are very skilled at avoiding direct questions, ignoring evidence, and cherry-picking authorities to argue from. This is not the same as intelligence.
It's a type of intelligence...
I don't discount YEC outright, regardless of evidence because to do so would be to abandon the other firmly established belief already held (like some here do), and I don't think all of existence developed as a product of purely natural, materialistic forces. I believe some alternative theories to creation are valid even if the scientific establishment does not. If you think this means I am a YEC, then you have a pretty loose interpretation of the label.
[edit] "You" being steven, who first assigned me the label, and also anyone else who considers what I and other like-minded persons believe to be Young Earth Creationism.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:That's true. He implied that being a Young Earth Creationist is incompatible with being intelligent.
Actually, he didn't. MattB said that treating all Christians (set A) as young-earth creationists (set B) isn't conducive to having a worthwhile conversation with intelligent people (set C). In essence, he cautioned you against conflating sets A & B, nothing more.
I normally wouldn't bother with this type of thing, but I find this portion of the discussion uncomfortable.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Uprooted:
quote:Replace "Bible" with "Koran" or "Tao Te Ching" or "Talmud" or "Upanishads" or "Diamond Sutra". It is much the same, is it not?
For Koran or Talmud, yes, I'd agree. Not familiar enough with the others to weigh in, but if the moral of their stories/teaching is also basically "do good, be kind, be true to something higher than yourself" then yes, I'd also agree.
However, do you really think that negates my point? All I was saying is that the Bible shouldn't be roundly villified as a poor moral guide because it has been twisted to justify the selfish goals of some. I'd say that the same can be said of any moral or philosophical work. There are going to be just as many, if not more, people who fail to live up to the ideals they profess as those who succeed.
Which is perfectly evidence, for me, that organized religion doesn't work. Here you are admitting that the track record is probably below 50%. And when you consider that the influence that these failing christians have wrought on the world, if you count them up, comes to millions upon millions of deaths, and centuries of human history practically forgotten in the dark ages, a time when our people forgot how to make concrete, I have a hard time seeing why there are so many loyal christians still around. The whole thing really hasn't worked out that well at all- in fact we're still living in day to day fear of the consequences of the crusades, and of the world wars, which allowed religious belief systems to become the basis for genocide.
The nice thing about being an atheist is that you're on your own. I don't have to worry that someone is going to connect my beliefs with some god-awful chapter of history and say: "how dare you!" Partly because that chapter in history is :surprise: not there. But also because even if it were, it wouldn't be my page.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
* Starts countdown to allegation that Hitler was an atheist *
Ten... nine...
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:* Starts countdown to allegation that Hitler was an atheist *
Ten... nine...
Is there a name for that technique: bringing up stupid statements that have not been brought up in the argument and that are sometimes made by those who disagree one's side in order to tarnish the other side by association?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
You know just as well as I do that that would have been Resh's very next post.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
How about the Preemptive Necromancy Gambit:
It's an attempt to raise a (non-live) argument to prevent the opposing party from doing so.
EDITED to remove redundancy.
Posted by akhockey (Member # 8394) on :
I'm actually kind of curious, what *is* that technique called? It has to have a name, everything has a name.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Seriously, what kind of a God would let three groups of people kill in his name for thousands of years, in the same place?
This is just too simplistic (given your tone in this thread, steven, I had to think again before choosing that word instead of a different one) because it makes too many assumptions.
One, it assumes a God who can literally change anything to suit His whim.
Two, it assumes a God who would.
And three, it assumes that changing humanity in such a way would result in a positive.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: You know just as well as I do that that would have been Resh's very next post.
Right, coming from the guy who actually brought it up in the first place. I'm not sure that I ever used the Hitler argument... yeah, ever. Guilt by association indeed, Dagonee. We ignorant Christians and our stupid Hitler comparisons.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Some people just can't wrap there heads around the whole "freewill" thing, Rakeesh.
Posted by Elmer's Glue (Member # 9313) on :
I didn't really want to be in this discussion, but there is something I thought was worth mentioning. From God's viewpoint, when people die, it just means they are coming back to him.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle:
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: You know just as well as I do that that would have been Resh's very next post.
Right, coming from the guy who actually brought it up in the first place. I'm not sure that I ever used the Hitler argument... yeah, ever.
quote:Mucas, you post is full of unfounded statements. Eugenics was not particularly religious, if I'm not mistaken. It was developed from Darwinistic theory and was generally embraced by atheists like... Hitler, for instance. After all, Evolution allows you to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Agreed, if God were evil, how could I continue to worship him?
It is actually pretty easy to discount the entire line of reasoning, and although I did not read the article, I'm sure it did not adequately address this: Supposing God exists, and God is as he is commonly defined (the Creator of Existence), then all the beauty of this world, be it art and music, or love and charity, and self-sacrifice, would be his creation. Therefore, even if the argument could be made that all the horrors of the world were the result of God, one could not honestly state that God was evil, because goodness could not be the product of something that was evil.
In Dungeons and Dragons people worship evil gods all the time, why? Because the said evil god offers power and wealth in exchange for your servitude. Which in my opinion is a heck of alot better of an exchange then the current one "worship me or go to hell".
Like wtf, where's the choice in that?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Mmm. You've got two things under the one word 'worship', there. The evil gods of roleplaying games demand sacrifices and temples and suchlike, while the Christian god demands prayer and love and submission. Not the same thing.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
The Christian god demanded that someone or other sacrifice his son, that he sent down an angel to stop it at the last second doesn't instill confidence in me.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
Well, there is some overlap though.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: The Christian god demanded that someone or other sacrifice his son, that he sent down an angel to stop it at the last second doesn't instill confidence in me.
You read from a very peculiar bible.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I read nothing, its what I hear my friends talk about, afaik they're baptists.
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: I read nothing, its what I hear my friends talk about, afaik they're baptists.
Well then you have friends who read from a peculiar bible, or else something was lost in translation when they talked to you about it.
edit: lol after looking at your link I now realize you were talking about Isaac. I was under the impression you were referring to Jesus.
edit: Say you saw a man fire a bullet from a gun at the head of a man 50 feet away and he managed to dash after the bullet and stop it after 10 feet, leaving 40 feet of space to spare. If he then repeated the feat and each time let the bullet travel 10 feet further. When he finally stopped the bullet a millimeter before it entered the man's head would you question his control over the situation?
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"This is just too simplistic (given your tone in this thread, steven, I had to think again before choosing that word instead of a different one) because it makes too many assumptions.
One, it assumes a God who can literally change anything to suit His whim.
Two, it assumes a God who would.
And three, it assumes that changing humanity in such a way would result in a positive."
Yeah, see, the whole Mormon idea of a non-omnipotent God has absolutely Jack Squat to do with what the rest of Christianity is talking about. I respect that position, and I sympathize with it, if anything, a little more strongly (than with the Omnipotent God theory), but I was not making an argument against a non-omnipotent God. I'll fight the non-omnipotent God later, if ever. I'm much more at peace with the theory of a God who is still learning, or who has very limited self-awareness/power. This makes a ton more sense. The Universe has a past and a future (from a certain point of view). Time has its cycles, like the seasons, etc., but it also has a linear component. I am not convinced that time is completely circular. I think there may be a net linearity to it, although I'm not making bets either way. Given a universe where time is fundamentally linear, it is much easier to imagine a limited God, or a God that learns and grows and changes.
More on all this later. I'm sure I made plenty of leaps in there, some possibly unsupportable.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Way to latch on to one aspect of my post while entirely ignoring the latter three items.
Whether or not God can change anything to suit His will has nothing at all to do with whether He would, and it has zero to do with whether it would result in a positive.
Anyway, I doubt very much whether you're actually knowledgeable about what the 'rest of Christianity' thinks about how omnipotent or not their God is, steven.
We're not talking martial arts, here. You're not the expert on everything Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: edit: Say you saw a man fire a bullet from a gun at the head of a man 50 feet away and he managed to dash after the bullet and stop it after 10 feet, leaving 40 feet of space to spare. If he then repeated the feat and each time let the bullet travel 10 feet further. When he finally stopped the bullet a millimeter before it entered the man's head would you question his control over the situation?
In the first place, no such sequence occurs in Isaac. In the second place, sod the control, playing such games with human lives is evil whether or not you have the skill to minimise accidents.
Posted by Constipatron (Member # 8831) on :
What I find very interesting in this ‘debate’ about God is that no one really addresses the consequences of our freedom to choose. ‘God is good’ should really be found on a personal level, not debate. He’s the MEASURE of what mankind ought to aspire to. Because of the abuse of our freedom to choose -which is the very reason we see war or bloodshed of any kind, drug abuse, sexual deviance, etc- It’s the ABUSE of that God-given freedom that produces tragedy in the world and it’s hardly God’s fault for granting us to act how we want to. Extremism in ANY way of our lives is absurdly idiotic, whether it’s in the Christian mainstream, Islamic militarism, or the seemingly pointless disbelieving of atheism (when there are so many witnesses to the existence of a God, why disbelieve?). God has never sanctioned extremism. I haven’t come across it in any valid scripture. In fact, the scriptures covers this very debate in outlining exactly what human nature will do as time carries on and their disbelief effectively destroying their potential on an eternal scale. Human nature is what we battle against -the dreadful repetition of our own carnality- that makes this world miserable, confusing, and tragic. God’s ways aren’t our ways and His thoughts aren’t our thoughts. We cannot hope to really understand Him or what He does, unless He deems it prudent for us to know. Human science is linear and cannot fathom God’s infinitum nor prove that He exists or doesn’t exist, because of human science’s fallibility and the variableness of human reasoning. Manmade religion shouldn’t act in God’s name because they invariably abuse it for their own ends, to exercise dominion over the weak, suppressed through warfare, etc, which makes finding the truth more important that it’s ever been. Manmade religion will fall eventually (it’s already begun, actually), exposing their rotting cores, revealing the truth to those who are unsure, solidifying the faith of those who’ve already found the truth, and fence sitters will suddenly realize it’s too late to their own sorrow. Anyway, I suggest that people won’t truly know whether God’s good or not until they put their own faith on the line by exercising their free-agency and stop relying on other’s opinions, theories, or on weak human rationalization and weak human science to point their way through life.
Posted by Constipatron (Member # 8831) on :
Steven said: "the whole Mormon idea of a non-omnipotent God has absolutely Jack Squat to do with what the rest of Christianity is talking about."
So-called Mormonism doesn't teach that God is 'non-omnipotent'. They teach the exact opposite.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote: So-called Mormonism doesn't teach that God is 'non-omnipotent'. They teach the exact opposite.
Huh?
-------
quote:In the first place, no such sequence occurs in Isaac. In the second place, sod the control, playing such games with human lives is evil whether or not you have the skill to minimise accidents.
Heh, says the man who wants to send the recalcitrant religious to camps for re-education? Or is exerting such control over human lives evil strictly based on the degree of power one has?
Anyway, in that story God did not have the skill to minimize accidents; furthermore, no human life was in danger there, though you probably did not mean the term 'human lives' there literally.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:(when there are so many witnesses to the existence of a God, why disbelieve?)
There are often witnesses to all kinds of things that aren't true. Epistemologically, there's only a certain measure of safety in numbers, and certainly not enough for me to devote my entire life to a figment, thank you very much.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:(when there are so many witnesses to the existence of a God, why disbelieve?)
To me, the belief of others is an extremely poor reason for a given individual to believe.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:He’s the MEASURE of what mankind ought to aspire to.
Sez you. This is precisely the assumption we are discussing; you are trying to make an end run, and going in a circle.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Seriously, are we talking again about the "superman in the sky" god?
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
Should we not?
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Seriously, are we talking again about the "superman in the sky" god?
I think we're talking about a god that somehow effects the real world. Could be a 'superman in the sky' god, and could be a 'does fancy magic tricks' god.
If we're talking about any kind of god that doesn't effect the real world, then that god is in the interesting position of appearing as if he doesn't exist, and so there's no need to bring him into any discussions.
If you were going to bring up a god like that. Which I don't know if you were or not.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Constipatron: the seemingly pointless disbelieving of atheism (when there are so many witnesses to the existence of a God, why disbelieve?).
When there are so many witnesses to the existence of Allah, why disbelieve?
When there are so many witnesses of the existence of Krishna, why disbelieve?
When there are so many adherents to Communism (over 1 billion, I think), why disagree?
Shall I give more examples?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Javert, unfortunately you are valiantly shouting into the wind. If there's one thing I've discovered about this perennial debate, it's that your brain, the way it connects observations and ideas together in order to construct a palatable fabric for the universe you experience, functions uniquely. There are many similarities; there would have to be, but the God thing is not about to go away, and what you and I may call logic, reason, sanity, is what another person can never understand.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: edit: Say you saw a man fire a bullet from a gun at the head of a man 50 feet away and he managed to dash after the bullet and stop it after 10 feet, leaving 40 feet of space to spare. If he then repeated the feat and each time let the bullet travel 10 feet further. When he finally stopped the bullet a millimeter before it entered the man's head would you question his control over the situation?
In the first place, no such sequence occurs in Isaac. In the second place, sod the control, playing such games with human lives is evil whether or not you have the skill to minimise accidents.
My point is, that God was in total control of the Abraham/Isaac situation. The event was planned out and executed exactly as God intended it to play out. There was not a last second change of plans. God wasn't playing games with Abraham, he presented an obstacle that allowed Abraham to learn for himself just how resolved he was to be faithful and with the obstacle came the opportunity to obtain a blessing nobody has ever been given since then. The situation is also a striking illustration of what God himself would do down the road hundreds of years later. The whole situation had multiple positive applications.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Ok KoM, but I was not the one who brought up eugenics. And I don't see how someone can discuss eugenics without bringing up Hitler.
How long did it take you to find that example, anyway? Between you and Samprimary, I'm starting to feel like I've got a cult following.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Roughly two seconds, the board has a search function.
quote:My point is, that God was in total control of the Abraham/Isaac situation.
And my point is, that doesn't matter. Of course Abraham is going to follow the orders of a god who is well known for massacring people who don't; devotion has nothing to do with it. Playing games like that is evil.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: edit: Say you saw a man fire a bullet from a gun at the head of a man 50 feet away and he managed to dash after the bullet and stop it after 10 feet, leaving 40 feet of space to spare. If he then repeated the feat and each time let the bullet travel 10 feet further. When he finally stopped the bullet a millimeter before it entered the man's head would you question his control over the situation?
In the first place, no such sequence occurs in Isaac. In the second place, sod the control, playing such games with human lives is evil whether or not you have the skill to minimise accidents.
My point is, that God was in total control of the Abraham/Isaac situation. The event was planned out and executed exactly as God intended it to play out. There was not a last second change of plans. God wasn't playing games with Abraham, he presented an obstacle that allowed Abraham to learn for himself just how resolved he was to be faithful and with the obstacle came the opportunity to obtain a blessing nobody has ever been given since then. The situation is also a striking illustration of what God himself would do down the road hundreds of years later. The whole situation had multiple positive applications.
And how do we know that? The Bible, the stories, everything could be an elaborate play by an omnipotent critin whose only goal is to get giggles from tormenting us.
Seriously put anyone in the position of a god and it turns into much lessa bout benelovent parenhood and much much more about target practice.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
KoM, if your point is that it doesn't matter that God was in control of the situation, you probably shouldn't have suggested otherwise, at least initially.
Furthermore, I am not convinced that it is evil to play games like that if you are willing to be sacrificed yourself*.
*Which, according to many Christian traditions, is precisely what would happen to God years later, and under much more brutal circumstances.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote: Seriously put anyone in the position of a god and it turns into much lessa bout benelovent parenhood and much much more about target practice.
You, maybe.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Roughly two seconds, the board has a search function.
quote:My point is, that God was in total control of the Abraham/Isaac situation.
And my point is, that doesn't matter. Of course Abraham is going to follow the orders of a god who is well known for massacring people who don't; devotion has nothing to do with it. Playing games like that is evil.
Yes yes it all makes sense now. Abraham after being given what he wanted more than anything else, (an heir) at the age of 100 years old decided to snuff out his son so as to preserve his life a few more years.
Abraham does not seem to have been pissed off in the wake of this experience. Why are you offended on his behalf? Is it really evil for our creator to ask that we love Him more than any other living being? edit: Assuming of course that he has our best interests at heart.
Lastly by Abraham's time the only time God had killed anybody was with the great flood, and according to God that only happened because everyone in the world was in a state of constant warfare and hatred abounded. It had nothing to do with following orders.
Blayne: I don't understand what you are getting at. I of course agree that if fallible human beings are given omnipotence they would certainly abuse that power in some way or other.
[ March 23, 2008, 06:54 PM: Message edited by: BlackBlade ]
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Furthermore, I am not convinced that it is evil to play games like that if you are willing to be sacrificed yourself*.
*Which, according to many Christian traditions, is precisely what would happen to God years later, and under much more brutal circumstances.
Well, if one is to consider becoming an omnipotent god (or merging...or reverting) a sacrifice, then your point would be correct.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
Yes yes it all makes sense now. Abraham after being given what he wanted more than anything else, (an heir) at the age of 100 years old decided to snuff out his son so as to preserve his life a few more years.[/quote]
Not to mention keeping himself out of hell for all of eternity.
quote:Abraham does not seem to have been pissed off in the wake of this experience. Why are you offended on his behalf? Is it really evil for our creator to ask that we love Him more than any other living being?
Well, yes, actually I think it is. Love is not under rational control. If you have children, will you (without whom they would not exist) demand that they love you more than their spouses and children? I would call that evil; I see no reason to apply any other standard to your god. As for Abraham, he did not write those chapters himself; I am disinclined to trust what the Hebrew propagandists wrote about what he felt after that nasty little trick.
quote:Blayne: I don't understand what you are getting at. I of course agree that if fallible human beings are given omnipotence they would certainly abuse that power in some way or other.
And the assumption that your god is infallible (in this case, infallibly good) is - precisely what we are discussing. So perhaps you should dial back that assumption and argue from the facts on the ground.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:And the assumption that your god is infallible (in this case, infallibly good) is - precisely what we are discussing. So perhaps you should dial back that assumption and argue from the facts on the ground.
Your continued insistence on this point is missing the point being made by others, KoM.
You and several others have presented a line of argument essentially like this:
1. God did X. 2. Beings who do X are bad. 3. Therefore God is bad."
People have responded by pointing out explanations of why beings who do X, when done by a particular type of being in particular situations, are not bad.
In other words, they are disagreeing with statement 2 above, not statement 3.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Javert,
quote:Well, if one is to consider becoming an omnipotent god (or merging...or reverting) a sacrifice, then your point would be correct.
Heh, well given that according to most Christian traditions, Isaac would have died and been transported to Heaven where he would be in eternal paradise.
So no, Isaac would not have to become God after dying for God not to have been evil to demand such a sacrifice of Abraham.
Isaac: swift death at the blade of a sharp knife Jesus: slow death after days of torment and ridicule
Seriously, Javert, you're stretching. God was not demanding anything of Abraham He was not willing to endure himself.
-------
KoM,
quote:Not to mention keeping himself out of hell for all of eternity.
According to some Christian traditions, yes.
quote:As for Abraham, he did not write those chapters himself; I am disinclined to trust what the Hebrew propagandists wrote about what he felt after that nasty little trick.
Weren't you just criticizing people for circular reasoning?
Pot, kettle. You're including the assumption that it was 'propagandists' who would lie who wrote those chapters as a key portion of your reasoning.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
"Seriously, Javert, you're stretching. God was not demanding anything of Abraham He was not willing to endure himself."
Sorry Rakeesh, but it's only equal if Isaac got to be god after death.
And not that I want to turn this into an argument about little issues, but as far as 'slow deaths' go, historically and modern, Jesus got off pretty light.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Javert,
You're seriously nitpicking here. If Isaac were sacrificed, eternal bliss after his quick death. The only point I was making before is that God was not asking of Abraham anything He wouldn't endure later, i.e. sacrificing his son.
Quibble all you like, but that remains true within the confines of the story. You're being ridiculous to assert otherwise. Abraham would have been reunited with his son in Heaven after Abraham died anyway, had God insisted Abraham do it.
So it's pretty strange to hear you say you don't want to turn it into an argument about little issues, and then go right ahead and make an argument about a very little issue.
Which wasn't relevant to what I said anyway. I was comparing the death of Jesus to the potential sacrifical death of Isaac. 'Slow' is the obvious comparative word to choose there, man.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
What Abraham wanted was not so much a son, as to be the progenitor of a people who would become numerous in the land. In other words, he wanted grandchildren. He is still giving that up.
quote:People have responded by pointing out explanations of why beings who do X, when done by a particular type of being in particular situations, are not bad.
Granted, but BlackBlade's explanation does rather hinge on the prior assumption that his god is in fact infallibly good, which kind of spoils the point.
quote:Pot, kettle. You're including the assumption that it was 'propagandists' who would lie who wrote those chapters as a key portion of your reasoning.
I'm saying that BlackBlade doesn't know any more about what Abraham felt than I do; therefore I am justified in assuming that Abraham would react as an ordinary human who has been played passive-aggressive "prove your loyalty" games with, namely, pissed.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Is it really time to have this same topic yet again?
Man, I miss the good old days of SSM threads.
Wake me up when we get there.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
KoM,
quote:I'm saying that BlackBlade doesn't know any more about what Abraham felt than I do; therefore I am justified in assuming that Abraham would react as an ordinary human who has been played passive-aggressive "prove your loyalty" games with, namely, pissed.
I admit I'm puzzled by your claim of equal knowledge of what Abraham might have felt compared to people who actually share Abraham's faith*. I mean, in the story Abraham was obviously a very faithful man. You're virulently anti-religious. I could just as well claim to understand the likely thought processes of a rutabaga as well as a turnip would, as you could Abraham.
*I recognize that there are a great many people in the world who can sincerely claim to share Abraham's specific faith, given his position as the 'father' of numerous religions.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I do not think there is any meaningful sense in which you, or anyone else alive today, can say that they share the faith of a man who, if he existed at all, died four thousand years ago.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I do not think there is any meaningful sense in which you, or anyone else alive today, can say that they share the faith of a man who, if he existed at all, died four thousand years ago.
I am not saying that people of the faiths Abraham founded all share his precise faith. I'm rejecting your claim of equal uncertainty.
Hypothetically, you may of course be right. But if Abraham did exist, and did have faith of a sort as we are taught, then given your hatred* towards religious people, you can hardly claim to guess at his motives as well as someone who shares his faith.
Lots of ifs, yes. But then again that's what this whole silly conversation is founded on.
*Yes, I said 'hatred'. You may very well say you don't hate religious people, in which case I obviously disagree, but that would be a long drawn out discussion that goes nowhere and has been had before several times.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Well, if you really think you have a better claim to read the mind of a man four thousand years dead, an illiterate who had never seen anything written down, a sheep-herder who thought thunder was caused by a god, based on nothing more than that you both believe in something supernatural, then I wish you much joy of it. I don't agree, though. If anything you are more likely to be wrong, just from overlaying your own religious patterns of thought on a man whose religion had absolutely no room for mercy or love.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
KoM,
I shouldn't be surprised that you weren't listening, but I am, kinda.
I didn't claim to be able to read his mind, or guess his thoughts, I claimed that someone who shared something similar to his faith could be assumed to do so better than you.
Heh, and you bear me out by the last sentence in your post just now. If Abraham's religion had no room for mercy or love, the story would never have been told at all. It would be irrelevant.
Posted by the_Somalian (Member # 6688) on :
By the way I apologize for the bad timing with this thread for those of you who celebrated Easter this Sunday. I didn't realize this was a religious weekend and I dislike greeting you all with this thread.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:I didn't claim to be able to read his mind, or guess his thoughts, I claimed that someone who shared something similar to his faith could be assumed to do so better than you.
And I disagreed. Would you like to offer something new to the conversation, or shall we leave it there?
Posted by Constipatron (Member # 8831) on :
Rakeesh, What I meant was that Mormonism teaches that God IS omnipotent. For application to this earth, He knows all there is to know about it and everything relative to it. As a God, yes, He could still be learning, but not where we're concerned.
Juxtapose, Of course you’re free to live your life the way you see fit. No one’s holding a gun to your head. And I can’t condemn anyone for that.
And to Rakeesh and Juxtapose both, I said in my last post (if you’d have read the whole thing): “I suggest that people won’t truly know whether God’s good or not until they put their own faith on the line by exercising their free-agency and stop relying on other’s opinions, theories, or on weak human rationalization and weak human science to point their way through life.” In other words, everyone’s got to find out ON THEIR OWN, FOR THEMSELVES and in the end they can’t rely on anyone else’s opinion, belief, etc. No one or no thing is going to convince them unless they come to their own conclusion through their own independent search for knowledge. Perhaps put religion to the test, not to point out flaws in scripture or to scoff at the whole thing, but by honestly and truthfully seeking the answer to the debate. Of course, if Christianity is wrong, or any other established religion, then what’s the problem? Those people (not the militant extremists the news is so fond of portraying, but the honest worshipers who try to live as best they can) will invariably lead a better life than someone who lives an unstructured, chaotic life. Such a perspective is more appealing to me than someone who has no direction or higher purpose. And if the agnostics or atheists are wrong… we’ll just have to see, eh?
King of Men, No, I’m not “trying to make an end run and going in a circle”. It’s my belief, my knowledge, based on my own personal experiences that are further augmented by scriptural knowledge, study and prayer. It’s the same as if anyone else were to share about what they know, etc. Would you rather everyone speak about things they don’t know about? I certainly couldn’t speak about quantum physics…
Javert, I’ve friends who are atheistic or agnostic in belief. And although I can understand their disbelief in God, I don’t understand why, when posed with the ability to search further, they simply close up and claim that a belief in a God is ‘illogical’, ‘foolish’, ‘stupid’, etc. There are many, many examples and parallels that can be drawn to any subject you talk about. By all means, go ahead and list, it still doesn’t change the validity of my statement.
I sincerely doubt that mankind, in its current instability, will be able to puzzle out the vast nuggets of knowledge that exist within the cosmos. They may find a portion, but invariably, their lives burn out well before they scrape the surface of deeper knowledge that I believe God does posess. It’s perfectly logical, reasonable, and sane to believe in a God for those who believe in it. To dismiss someone’s belief simply because that individual is ignorant of what another knows is what’s illogical, unreasonable and insane. I cannot convince an atheist, Hindu, etc. of my beliefs just as they cannot convince me of theirs. But at least we can be open and talk about our beliefs without hostility or ridicule. I’m not trying to dismiss atheism or agnosticism, or any other religious belief. I’m simply expressing what I think on the matter of whether God is good; in which I said that I felt the key factor is human fallibility in their unwise execution of agency. These are just my beliefs and opinions anyway. Answer me this, why do atheists and religion have to be so hostile?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I certainly couldn’t speak about quantum physics…
Not to speak for KoM, but I suspect that he'd assert that you couldn't speak about God, either. And probably that you know more about quantum physics than you do about the Creator.
quote:It’s perfectly logical, reasonable, and sane to believe in a God for those who believe in it.
More accurately, those who believe in God generally believe that their belief is logical, reasonable, and sane.
quote:Answer me this, why do atheists and religion have to be so hostile?
I wouldn't say that atheists are hostile to religion. They just think religion is largely made up of manipulative lies and self-delusion, and there aren't many polite ways to put that. In return, I think that tends to make believers hostile to atheists.
Posted by Constipatron (Member # 8831) on :
I don't think I'm completely sane anyway. But then again, can anyone claim to be completely sane in this insane world?
Hmm... well, I've never been hostile toward my friends. I respect everyone's opinion though I have my moments. But I seem to run into the hostility anyway after I tell them I respect their opinion.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
We can assume God is good, if God exists as a something that is at least all-knowing and all-powerful, because being all-knowing and all-powerful necessarily implies that one is good.
After all, if there is standard of "good" against which God could be measured, it would have to be an objective fact not only what is good but also that good itself is good. In order to be all-knowing, God would have to always know both what is good and also that good is preferable to not good. Given this, it logically follows that God would always intend to do good.
So that would only leave the possibility that God intends good but is somehow unable to do it. That directly conflicts with the omnipotence of God. If God knows what good is and knows that good is preferable to not good, and if God can do anything He intends to do, then He would definitely do good.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:After all, if there is standard of "good" against which God could be measured, it would have to be an objective fact not only what is good but also that good itself is good. In order to be all-knowing, God would have to always know both what is good and also that good is preferable to not good. Given this, it logically follows that God would always intend to do good.
I'm not following the logic there. Why is good preferable to non-good? Some people do pretty well for themselves and achieve great success towards their own goals through being non-good. Non-good is "preferable" to good for these people. Why would this not be the case for God?
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
"Why is good preferable to non-good?"
Is non-good the same as bad? "Non" means the absence of, and like dark is the absence of light, bad is the absence of good (or so the claim is made.) So by the very definition of the words, Good is ---well, I would say "better," not "preferable," but the point is the same--- better than bad.
Kinda the long way around, it's all in the meaning of the word. Good is better, is preferable, because it is good, and anything else would not be as good, and therefore not preferable.
Somthing like that, right Tresopax? Or would you explain it differently?
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
Constipatron , Hmm, I think my last post came off a bit more prickly than I meant it to. Your reasoning irked me, but be that as it may, my apologies.
But to more substantially address what you're saying,
quote:In other words, everyone’s got to find out ON THEIR OWN, FOR THEMSELVES and in the end they can’t rely on anyone else’s opinion, belief, etc.
I have to disagree with this also. Or, I can agree with it in the sense that no one can make up my mind on these matters for me. It's just that that statement isn't very useful. Of course people have got to decide for themselves.
But really, we're social animals. We rely on each other, not just for raw data with which to decide, but for pre-built conclusions. I do it all the time. There's too much requisite knowledge to be a good human being for us to not take some shortcuts. Most people take them for granted most of the time. I do.
You mentioned one of those shortcuts earlier: "If everyone else is doing X, it's probably a good idea for me to do X also." In certain situations, that's a pretty useful maxim; traffic would be hell if no one followed that one. As myself and others pointed out though, it has limits of usefulness. The point I was trying to make in my last post was that, while this maxim makes a useful shortcut, it makes a pretty poor justification, especially for what amounts to a lifetime commitment.
Here's another maxim: "Your elders have more experience than you do, it's a good idea to obey them, or at least heed their advice." Undeniably useful. It's more or less hardwired into kids below a certain age. But what if your parents take advantage of that fact to fill your head with a lot of nonsense? As far as atheists see things, that's what's happening (though we sometimes forget that it's done with the best of intentions).
quote:Of course, if Christianity is wrong, or any other established religion, then what’s the problem? Those people (not the militant extremists the news is so fond of portraying, but the honest worshipers who try to live as best they can) will invariably lead a better life than someone who lives an unstructured, chaotic life. Such a perspective is more appealing to me than someone who has no direction or higher purpose.
Well, there's all the time spent worshiping a non-entity. It's time that could, arguably have been better spent. Assuming there isn't an afterlife, that time is all the more precious.
And I can't disagree strenuously enough when you say that religious faithful will invariably lead better lives than someone unstructured and chaotic.
For one thing, it sounds a lot like you think that nonbelievers lead unstructured and chaotic lives when the opposite is true. For example, atheists and agnostics are less likely to be incarcerated than believers. As many atheists will tell you, non-belief opens up new directions for you to pick for yourself.
Secondly, it sounds a lot like you think that theists will, in the absence of religion, lead chaotic unstructured lives. I'll admit that some would. I think many more would not.
As a final note, it is quite possible to convince other people of the truth of your beliefs. That's how C.S. Lewis converted, ne?
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
quote: Well, there's all the time spent worshiping a non-entity. It's time that could, arguably have been better spent.
First one must ask what time well spent would consist of. If a person feels enriched by worship, can it truly be wasted? Especially when there's no guarantee that they wouldn't spend Sunday morning sleeping in or playing video games instead.
It's a pretty big jump to assume that all theists would follow a well reasoned moral code and act in their own best interest without the beliefs they were raised with. Heck, a lot of them don't act that way as is.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by AvidReader: It's a pretty big jump to assume that all theists would follow a well reasoned moral code and act in their own best interest without the beliefs they were raised with.
You have to split these two things up. I believe that, without their beliefs, almost everyone would act in their own best interest. Or what they thought their best interest was, at any rate.
As far as a "well reasoned moral code", what is that? Many people, atheist and theist, haven't reasoned their moral codes at all. They just follow the moral codes passed down by their family or religion.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
If belief and non-belief make no difference, then why are we having this discussion? People should do exactly what they're doing anyway, just without the word God thrown in?
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:I’ve friends who are atheistic or agnostic in belief. And although I can understand their disbelief in God, I don’t understand why, when posed with the ability to search further, they simply close up and claim that a belief in a God is ‘illogical’, ‘foolish’, ‘stupid’, etc. There are many, many examples and parallels that can be drawn to any subject you talk about. By all means, go ahead and list, it still doesn’t change the validity of my statement.
What do you mean "posed with the ability to search further"? Because I, for one, have never stopped searching for religious answers. I just don't receive answers that confirm any particular religious belief.
I don't close up, but I certainly have called certain peoples' beliefs irrational. If I call someone's belief illogical, it is only because they don't seem to make logical sense within their own framework. If I call someone's belief 'foolish' or 'stupid', I only do so if the believer is acting in those ways because of their belief. (Which, I'm happy to say, very few if any people here at Hatrack seem to do so.)
My original point, which I think still stands, was addressing the fact that you seemed to think the number of believers meant something.
There are so many believers in god, so they must be correct!
Well, no, actually.
Everyone in the world could believe in a god, even the same god, and that fact wouldn't mean the god actually existed.
I just wanted to make sure that was clear.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
KOM: I'll try to wind back to some of your earlier points before you and Rakeesh started going back and forth. Unfortunately I have a math project that is due today and my two lab partners decided that instead of emailing me their material Saturday so that I could compile it into a report they basically did everything, including the report and emailed it to me Sunday evening, thus leaving me high and dry as a contributory factor. I'm not sure how I am supposed to salvage a grade out of this when I will have done at best 10% of the total work.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Constipatron: ... Answer me this, why do atheists and religion have to be so hostile?
I'm not even necessarily convinced that atheists and religion *are* all that hostile.
Books and online arguments on a web forum are on a decidedly low rung of violence, all things considered.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Heh, that's a nice bit of reasoning there, Tom, re: atheists and hostility to religion.
In my experience, most people are hostile to manipulative lies and self-delusion. About as many people who are hostile to insults, really.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Not really responding to anyone:
I started reading the New Testament expecting to find a reasonably admirable Jesus. Although I am an atheist I had for a long time thought Jesus to be a pretty shining example of humanity. How shocked I was to find that Jesus is, in many places, a big jerk- and beyond that, not exactly always forthcoming. And that's how his followers depict him.
I guess as a true, reasoning atheist I shouldn't be surprised that find that a man has faults and flaws.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Why is good preferable to non-good? Some people do pretty well for themselves and achieve great success towards their own goals through being non-good. Non-good is "preferable" to good for these people.
Good is preferable to non-good because that is essentially what Good is - Good is that which is objectively preferable. If there is nothing that is objectively preferable, nothing that we rationally should prefer, then there is no good against which to weigh God anyway, so the question would be moot. (It would make little sense to weigh God against a relativistic morality because the answer would change depending on who is asking the question.)
People who pursue non-good goals only do so because they are confused enough that they think those goals are what they should prefer. Non-good isn't actually what those people should prefer. I think they do prefer it, but only because their knowledge of what is good is incomplete.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:In my experience, most people are hostile to manipulative lies and self-delusion. About as many people who are hostile to insults, really.
Well, see, that's part of the problem. The expression of atheism is, to a religious mind, pretty much inherently offensive. There is an order of difference between mutually agreeing to believe in two different supernatural phenomena and disagreeing on the existence of supernatural phenomena entirely.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Tom,
It's not inherently offensive to a religious mind. It is frequently inherently offensive to a mind trained to find atheism offensive, of course, but that isn't the same thing.
And anyway, you're sidestepping the point.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
It was about time this got into the question of what "good" is, although it hasn't been explored enough yet. That, I think, is the biggest problem with the debate as it is right now. There is an assumption that "good" means this or that quality.
Those who are arguing who is the better God because of body count (in life or death) obviously have no idea what religious people mean by "good." On the other hand, there are many religions that define "good" in ways that are at odds with each other. In fact, there are atheists that don't believe in "good" as anything more than either self-gratification, doing no harm to others, or a combination of both. Good is what we make of it and not an existing truth.
In other words, I refuse to define my God's goodness by other people's idea of what constitutes good. Just so others know where I am coming from, and to underline why I think this argument is worthless, I will explain why I believe God is good. He is good because I believe the holy teachings that say he is good. No matter how bad it might seem in some respects, I know He is good because I believe in God's words. As someone who believes God supercedes logic that is enough for me.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:being all-knowing and all-powerful necessarily implies that one is good.
No, it doesn't.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:And anyway, you're sidestepping the point.
Not really, no. The point I'm making is that any frank, atheistic statement is going to be inevitably offensive, because it represents a bald negation of a belief that is presumably deeply held and important to the hearer. The listener may of course choose not to be offended by this negation -- and a variety of options exist for this -- but any such statement at all immediately puts it in the listener's court. An atheist who acts surprised when someone finds his assertion of atheism offensive is someone who hasn't been an atheist long.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by Teshi: I started reading the New Testament expecting to find a reasonably admirable Jesus. Although I am an atheist I had for a long time thought Jesus to be a pretty shining example of humanity. How shocked I was to find that Jesus is, in many places, a big jerk- and beyond that, not exactly always forthcoming. And that's how his followers depict him.
I'm not a theist either, and certainly not a Christian, so I'm not offended by this, but I'm curious what things you're seeing him do that make him come off as a jerk. There's the business with the fig tree, of course, and the incident with the money changers might be read that way, but what else? It's been a long time since I've read the gospels, but I don't remember there being a lot of places where I thought "man, what a jerk".
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:being all-knowing and all-powerful necessarily implies that one is good.
No, it doesn't.
Especially since at that point I can see how easily one can become bored.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: It was about time this got into the question of what "good" is, although it hasn't been explored enough yet. That, I think, is the biggest problem with the debate as it is right now. There is an assumption that "good" means this or that quality.
Those who are arguing who is the better God because of body count (in life or death) obviously have no idea what religious people mean by "good." On the other hand, there are many religions that define "good" in ways that are at odds with each other. In fact, there are atheists that don't believe in "good" as anything more than either self-gratification, doing no harm to others, or a combination of both. Good is what we make of it and not an existing truth.
In other words, I refuse to define my God's goodness by other people's idea of what constitutes good. Just so others know where I am coming from, and to underline why I think this argument is worthless, I will explain why I believe God is good. He is good because I believe the holy teachings that say he is good. No matter how bad it might seem in some respects, I know He is good because I believe in God's words. As someone who believes God supercedes logic that is enough for me.
To use the obvious example: People thought Hitler was good, Hitlers propoganda even said so.
Why do people almost except for crazies unanimaniously agree he is bad? Because through his actions over 6 million people died.
God killed 2 million people the situations are very similar, why should we logically conclude he is good when his teachings are all logically 'evil'?
I think it would be approbiate to the discussion to bring in Penn & Teller .
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:And anyway, you're sidestepping the point.
Not really, no. The point I'm making is that any frank, atheistic statement is going to be inevitably offensive, because it represents a bald negation of a belief that is presumably deeply held and important to the hearer. The listener may of course choose not to be offended by this negation -- and a variety of options exist for this -- but any such statement at all immediately puts it in the listener's court. An atheist who acts surprised when someone finds his assertion of atheism offensive is someone who hasn't been an atheist long.
You're right. All of a sudden you as a theist are called upon to defend theism itself, not just your particular set of beliefs. Many of the basic beliefs you hold in common with others who believe in a deity go out the window when you're talking to an atheist. You have to think at a very fundamental level. It's vexing.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:God killed 2 million people the situations are very similar, why should we logically conclude he is good when his teachings are all logically 'evil'?
Even assuming that you mean the traditional Christian God, here, it's a stretch to say that all that God's teachings are "logically evil." Many of His actions appear evil by human standards, but the teachings by and large aren't all that horrible (with some exceptions).
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
"Because through his actions over 6 million people died."
"God killed 2 million people the situations are very similar, why should we logically conclude he is good when his teachings are all logically 'evil'?"
Why should we logically conclude death or even killing is evil? Does that also mean that Americans are evil who killed Nazi troopers? Are they good because the other side had weapons? Was it evil to drop bombs on "innocent" civilians in order to stop Hitler from killing more humans?
I guess I am still wondering what "good" and "logic" has to do with each other.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I think the very fact that the core of the belief system of the Judeo-Christian god is "believe with heart and soul and follow a set of 10 arbirtrary rules or burn in hell for all eterny" is encredibly fundamentally flawed that I think casts a suspisious shadow on everything else.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I actually partly agree with you Blayne Bradley. Of course, more than one religious person who believes that think I am evil and going to hell.
Not that I would not believe in a God that does do that. However, I just don't believe God does.
Posted by Shawshank (Member # 8453) on :
quote:I think the very fact that the core of the belief system of the Judeo-Christian god is "believe with heart and soul and follow a set of 10 arbirtrary rules or burn in hell for all eterny"
Or, you know, just two.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote: WHAT’S EVIL? Some would point out that a fireball spell is likely to cause undue suffering, and it could be used to kill a group of orphans. Does that make fireball an evil spell? Fireball, by itself, simply creates a blast of fire. Fire can be used for evil purposes, but it is not inherently evil. Contrasted with a spell such as shriveling, whose only purpose and only possible use is to wither the flesh of another living creature in a painful and debilitating fashion, it becomes easier to see why shriveling is an evil spell. The judgment cannot be based solely on effect. Your campaign could, for example, have a spell called vitality leech that calls upon a demon that drains Strength points from a target for a short time. The spell’s effect is only slightly different from ray of enfeeblement, but the approach and execution are very different. Vitality leech is an evil spell, while ray of enfeeblement is not. Although the ultimate game effect is the same, the character in the game world faced with the two spells undoubtedly regards them differently. Tapping into evil power is an evil act in and of itself, no matter what the effects or the reason for using the power might be.
D&D Terminology ftw.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Or, you know, not that at all.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I must say that I have thought how atheists (and minority faiths) argue about religion is evidence that the United States is a Christian Nation by de fault. Same can be said for Western Civilization. I mean, how do atheist arguments go in a Muslim or Hindu dominated nation?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shawshank:
quote:I think the very fact that the core of the belief system of the Judeo-Christian god is "believe with heart and soul and follow a set of 10 arbirtrary rules or burn in hell for all eterny"
Or, you know, just two.
Or you know, you could explain.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: I must say that I have thought how atheists (and minority faiths) argue about religion is evidence that the United States is a Christian Nation by de fault. Same can be said for Western Civilization. I mean, how do atheist arguments go in a Muslim or Hindu dominated nation?
I think Western Civilization is a very Roman based civilization, I think christinanity has been casted off as a guider of Western actions around the time Napoleon dispensed with the Holy Roman Empire.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Love God and Love your Neighbor. On this hangs all the Prophets.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Now I think you need to explain. I have no idea what you just meant.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
It is arguable that in the middle ages Christinanity was the moral guidance of many kingdoms rather then economic or Machiavellian views, this gradually weakened as the powers of monarchs centralized and grew apart from the Pope and into their own courts, I would plac two events as the final nails in the coffin of Christian guidance in the political arena of nations, the Treaty of Westphalia and the dismantling of the Holy Roman Empire.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
Suppose God is actually in a battle with Satan over a piece of heavenly territory. They both have reasonable claims on that territory though the rules of heaven require that they use human human souls to fight a proxy battle to determine which of them shall win. God's only interest in mankind is in creating fodder for his army. God embarks on a propaganda campaign in which he claims that he is good and that Satan is evil and that Satan is a liar who cannot be trusted. Through this campaign God convinces large portions of the population that he has their best interest in mind and he directs them to behave in ways which are likely to increase their numbers so as to create a powerful army to act on his behalf in the heavenly war. Sometimes these behaviors include brutal wars of conquest, while other times they involve charitable outreach.
Is this version of God good? Is it inconsistent with the Biblical account? If it is inconsistent, would much modification be required to make it consistent?
It does not seem difficult to construct a God that is consistent with the words and behaviors attributed to him which is not good for any definition of good other than "might makes right".
In some ways I am glad that I have thus far had no confirmation of the existence of a God because I fear there would be no way to determine whether that God was of a character to which I should dedicate my worship.
[ March 24, 2008, 02:16 PM: Message edited by: MattP ]
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Hard to say it doesnt match the biblical account but then again we probably cant trust it in the first place so we could probably come up with different scenarios to explain it *shrug*.
But as they say all lies are based partially in truth.
We could say that "okay, what if the biblical account is partially true?"
What if both Lucifer and Yahweh are equally morally ambigious god like beings living whatever heaven is, they get into a disagreement over the proper way to guide the human race, Yahweh believes that humans need to be brought along with discipline as humans are flawed beings, they need to be guided, taught how to run their lives, valuing the human instinct to Orderly societies.
Lucifer however believes that Humans should be more chaotic, that the strongest of human traits rather then being suppressed should be nurtured. That a more chaotic fluid humanity bringing out their strongest traits rather then their weakest.
Order vs Chaos Yahweh being more powerful then Lucifer and having more supporters succeeds in his/her own domain to casting down Lucifer to the garbage dump of the planes, the angels are given a choice "him or me" some choose to follow Lucifer and some choose to stay with Yahweh.
And thus we have the current situation both Lucifer and Yahweh go to Earth through avatars and proxies to try to gain human beings on their respective sides, even going as far as to go to Yahwehs demigod son Joshua.
The bible was written through Yahwehs influence was written as to by this line of reasoning demonize Lucifer into a fire breathing dragon that eats babies and compulsively lies, while Yahweh becomes more of an Omnipotent being of infinit goodness, the sheer polarization is rather jarring.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I feel like I am in a Mormon Sunday School class about the War in Heaven, only looking at it in a reverse mirror. Feels kind of strange.
Posted by Shawshank (Member # 8453) on :
quote:Suppose God is actually in a battle with Satan over a piece of heavenly territory. They both have reasonable claims on that territory though the rules of heaven require that they use human human souls to fight a proxy battle to determine which of them shall win. God's only interest in mankind is in creating fodder for his army. God embarks on a propaganda campaign in which he claims that he is good and that Satan is evil and that Satan is a liar who cannot be trusted. Through this campaign God convinces large portions of the population that he has their best interest in mind and he directs them to behave in ways which are likely to increase their numbers so as to create a powerful army to act on his behalf in the heavenly war. Sometimes these behaviors include brutal wars of conquest, while other times they involve charitable outreach.
Well I would say that God doesn't need humanity for anything. He created us simply so He can have a relationship with us.
The rules of heaven would have been created by God- it's not like it's set up to be some force of arbitration.
And Blayne, as to your question: Jesus later describes the essence of the two laws that form the basis of the entire law "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength" and the second is like it "Love your neighbor as yourself" that is the essence of the law.
But to say that God puts these rules in place and then says- if you don't obey those you will burn forever is a serious exaggeration that grossly simplifies things to an inaccurate level. God doesn't actually think that we can live up to those laws by ourselves. But since the consequence of sin has always been death- something has to die. Therefore God being all-loving gave us methodologies for sacrifices (culminating in Christ's passion) so that we can still be in relationship with God forever.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shawshank: Well I would say that God doesn't need humanity for anything. He created us simply so He can have a relationship with us.
God: Cosmic paedophile? Next on Fox News Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Well I would say that God doesn't need humanity for anything. He created us simply so He can have a relationship with us
And how do we know this? Because he told us? Because someone said he told them?
quote:The rules of heaven would have been created by God- it's not like it's set up to be some force of arbitration.
Again, how do we know this? Mormons, for instance, believe that God is subject to higher laws than those that he has created.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Tom,
quote:Not really, no. The point I'm making is that any frank, atheistic statement is going to be inevitably offensive, because it represents a bald negation of a belief that is presumably deeply held and important to the hearer. The listener may of course choose not to be offended by this negation -- and a variety of options exist for this -- but any such statement at all immediately puts it in the listener's court. An atheist who acts surprised when someone finds his assertion of atheism offensive is someone who hasn't been an atheist long.
*shrug* Not in my experience, and I'm speaking of my experience both before and after conversion. Someone saying, "I believe your faith is a bunch of bunk," does not offend me if just anyone says it, simply because I don't actually care what just anyone thinks. Close friends have said it to me before, and I was not offended.
My religion has not once been negated by anyone else's disbelief. If my faith had been negated, then my faith would have been pretty insubstantial in the first place, right?
The problem is, in my experience, that relatively few atheists or else simply non-believers in any given faith actually stop at saying, "I disagree with you on a fundamental level." No, the usual experience goes quite a lot further than that. "You're stupid," or, "You're going to hell," being common outright statements or implications.
That's a different ball of wax altogether. I agree with AfR, but 'vexing' =/ offensive.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: I feel like I am in a Mormon Sunday School class about the War in Heaven, only looking at it in a reverse mirror. Feels kind of strange.
reversed? explain as i know of neither.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
It is a curious atheist that says "you're going to hell."
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shawshank: Well I would say that God doesn't need humanity for anything. He created us simply so He can have a relationship with us.
The rules of heaven would have been created by God- it's not like it's set up to be some force of arbitration.
And Blayne, as to your question: Jesus later describes the essence of the two laws that form the basis of the entire law "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength" and the second is like it "Love your neighbor as yourself" that is the essence of the law.
But to say that God puts these rules in place and then says- if you don't obey those you will burn forever is a serious exaggeration that grossly simplifies things to an inaccurate level. God doesn't actually think that we can live up to those laws by ourselves. But since the consequence of sin has always been death- something has to die. Therefore God being all-loving gave us methodologies for sacrifices (culminating in Christ's passion) so that we can still be in relationship with God forever.
If that is true why have the bible in first place? If all that matters are those 2? Then there is still the matter of 'sin' is there sin? Is sin real? Is it justified by a not flawed ethical logic? Also these methodologies implies we did something wrong, what if we did something wrong only through biblical eyes, if that is the case then why should sacrifice something to make amends if what we did was right or at least our right?
I don't think I have oversimplyfied, I think that according to biblical literature and its current interpretations answer me this: If an individual completely rejects jesus's sacrifice, rejects god, rejects the bible and all morals that supposedly stemming from it completely in heart and soul what happens to this person when he dies?
Posted by Achilles (Member # 7741) on :
quote: Why do some assume that God is?
There. Fixed that for you. (hey, it's the first time, and probably last, that I've used that meme....)
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Mucus,
quote:It is a curious atheist that says "you're going to hell."
It would be, wouldn't it? Fortunately I wasn't speaking strictly about atheists when I made that comment, a point which is pretty clear given the context.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Someone saying, "I believe your faith is a bunch of bunk," does not offend me if just anyone says it, simply because I don't actually care what just anyone thinks.
Which is, of course, why I said that at that point the choice of whether or not to be offended falls to the listener. I mean, I could say "you're a stupid doody-head," and you could decide whether or not to consider that offensive. By that logic -- by saying that when a listener can decide whether to be offended or not, something is not offensive -- we are forced to conclude that nothing, anywhere, is actually offensive.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
I'm not sure that the question of God being good is necessarily all that important.
Sure, I can understand why it would be important for many definitions of God. If God demanded to be worshipped and expected everyone to obey his every command without any reason or explanation, then yeah, I can see why it would be important for a person to have some pretty convincing evidence of his goodness. Or if the condition of one's eternal existence depended on God's definition of goodness, then yeah, it would be important that our definition of goodness would match his.
But for a God that set the universe in motion and occassionally gives people some guidance as to how they can attain spiritual enlightenment or awareness, then I don't really see how his goodness is all that relevant. Especially since it's not something that can be proven anyway.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Rakeesh: Oh, I missread the "non-believers in any given faith" bit. Its actually a good point, Muslims are non-believers in Christianity and Scientologists are non-believers in God. However, I usually see "non-believers" as a catch-all grouping for atheists, agnostics, and so forth rather than that, hence the missreading.
Carry-on Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
I believe God is good the same way a loving, caring parent is good—showing love, helping their kids grow and develop, building up their self esteem, doing all they can for them to help them be happy—and also providing rules and limits and administering discipline where needed for the good of their kids. In other words, an active, involved sort of good that hopefully most of us have experienced to some extent in our own families.
That’s how I would define good.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Yeah but alot of parents are also crazy possessive colosteny bags who cause only pain and suffering, pick your analogies carefully.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
He didn't say parent, Blayne, he said, and I quote, "...loving, caring parent..."
You reply way too quickly.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
EDIT: My parents weren’t/aren’t perfect either, and I’ve got plenty of my own shortcomings as a parent. But I think it’s a good we can all relate to. At least it’s a good we all understand and can agree to as being “good.”
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:administering discipline where needed for the good of their kids
I think this is the point where many of us see god, or at least the concept of god that some people hold to, falling from good into evil.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Because of the administration of discipline itself, or because of the nature of it?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert:
quote:administering discipline where needed for the good of their kids
I think this is the point where many of us see god, or at least the concept of god that some people hold to, falling from good into evil.
I see it more an issue of God not being concerned about the welfare (and especially growth) of his children, but only about their obedience to him; An issue of him, instead of encouraging by people's growth, being threatened by it and trying to punish/otherwise discourage it. Just like a self-centered abusive parent does.
A lot of people seem to me to worship a deity because he is powerful, not because he is good.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots: Because of the administration of discipline itself, or because of the nature of it?
The nature of the discipline that some believers think god takes.
Not the discipline itself. That I could understand, if not completely get behind. It's the whole 'hell' business.
I've said it in other threads: infinite punishment for finite crimes is the most evil concept I have ever come across.
And I understand that not all believers in god also believe in hell or infinite punishment. But many religious texts say it, and many religious believers believe it.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
KOM:
quote:Not to mention keeping himself out of hell for all of eternity.
Your original statement was that God would slay Abraham had he not sacrificed Isaac. Are we talking about afterlives or a scary death?
quote:Well, yes, actually I think it is. Love is not under rational control. If you have children, will you (without whom they would not exist) demand that they love you more than their spouses and children? I would call that evil; I see no reason to apply any other standard to your god. As for Abraham, he did not write those chapters himself; I am disinclined to trust what the Hebrew propagandists wrote about what he felt after that nasty little trick.
Love for one's spouse over family is not so cut and dry I'm afraid. Many Asian families would say that honoring one's parents is more important than honoring one's spouse. But say we take the Judeo-Christian tradition of cleaving to one's spouse and no other. Our parents give birth to us and raise us, but they do not actually provide life. Life, with God out of the equation, assuming all life didn't just stop then and there, would still be impossible as bodies would not be quickened. Therefore God holds the universe together, and thus has a greater claim to our loyalty than any mortal. I agree with you that a creator who is either as intellectually prone to mistakes as us, or who does not have our interests at heart does not deserve our greatest loyalty.
Benefits being preceded by trial and suffering is something most humans understand the value of. Had God offered Abraham the Abrahamic Covenant and then said that it hinged on him sacrificing his son Isaac we would then rightfully conclude that Abraham could only have been doing the right thing because God bribed him. Instead we find that Abraham based on his history of dealing with God decided to follow God's instructions even the difficult ones without any knowledge of what he stood to gain.
And if you don't trust the historians who reported the incident, then how can we discuss the story at all? Either Abraham saw the experience as a very positive one, or else he intentionally lied about it when he began the oral tradition. Or else Abraham never existed and the whole thing is a myth. Also Mormons claim to have a translation of the book of Abraham that he penned with his own hand.
If we are going to discuss the merits of the Christian God it's pointless to say the stories are only shades of the true version. If we can't take at least some of those stories as being true on the important concepts we can't draw any conclusions, for all we know the Hebrew historians were very unfavorable when they portrayed God.
Also, it's not surprising that an experience like Abraham's, a task tailored for him would not necessarily speak volumes for you or me. Nevertheless plenty of people have made sacrifices comparable to Abraham's for God and claim similar benefits for having done so.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: ... Life, with God out of the equation, assuming all life didn't just stop then and there, would still be impossible as bodies would not be quickened. Therefore God holds the universe together, and thus has a greater claim to our loyalty than any mortal.
Luckily, immortals are somewhat outside of these claims, since their bodies can be quickened by decapitating a nearby immortal.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: ... Life, with God out of the equation, assuming all life didn't just stop then and there, would still be impossible as bodies would not be quickened. Therefore God holds the universe together, and thus has a greater claim to our loyalty than any mortal.
Luckily, immortals are somewhat outside of these claims, since their bodies can be quickened by decapitating a nearby immortal.
Well yes, that goes without saying.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Love for one's spouse over family is not so cut and dry I'm afraid. Many Asian families would say that honoring one's parents is more important than honoring one's spouse. But say we take the Judeo-Christian tradition of cleaving to one's spouse and no other. Our parents give birth to us and raise us, but they do not actually provide life. Life, with God out of the equation, assuming all life didn't just stop then and there, would still be impossible as bodies would not be quickened. Therefore God holds the universe together, and thus has a greater claim to our loyalty than any mortal.
You make three mistakes in this paragraph. First, you are failing to distinguish between "having a claim to love" and "punishing for not loving". The first is reasonable. The second is evil. Second, you are taking as - hah - Gospel that your god is indeed required for life. For this you have only the word of your god, whose goodness, and therewith truthfulness, you should not be assuming for this discussion. Third, you are failing to address the point I made, namely that even the actual giving of life, creation if you prefer, does not give you the right to demand love and punish if it is not received. Even for an infallible creator.
quote:And if you don't trust the historians who reported the incident, then how can we discuss the story at all?
The same way that we discuss any other historical incident we know from sources we cannot cross-check: By applying ordinary source criticism. We ask "Does this course of events accord with what we know of the actors' general culture? Does their motivation as reported seem reasonable? Does the story have elements which are common to myths? Does the reporter have a particular agenda or bias that we should correct for? Was he an eyewitness, a member of an oral tradition, or a historian writing from secondary sources? Why is he telling us this in the first place?" And so on. Really, you must have learned this in school.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:No, it doesn't.
Yes, it does.
(Isn't arguing so much easier when you skip the part where you give logic to back up your assertions?)
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Why do people almost except for crazies unanimaniously agree he is bad? Because through his actions over 6 million people died.
God killed 2 million people the situations are very similar, why should we logically conclude he is good when his teachings are all logically 'evil'?
An important factor is WHY Hitler killed all those people. A large part of what made him so widely villified was that, beyond killing those people, almost everyone agrees that his justification for that killing was both evil to an extreme. The U.S. killed a ton of people with our atomic bombs in WWII, but there is a lot less agreement over whether or not that particular action was evil.
Consider also that God's actions are justified in ways that human actions could never be, because God can presumably see perfectly what effects his actions will cause. God could, in theory, kill one man to save three men, and know for sure that doing so would save lives. Man, on the other hand, can only speculate that killing one man might save the three others, because human beings don't really understand what effects their actions will have. It seems to me that, because of this, we'd not expect God's actions to follow the same guidelines than human beings are supposed to follow to compensate for our capacity to misunderstand what we should do. (It's sort of like how you might tell a child "never drink alcohol" because a child would not know when to stop, but you might simultaneously think it is okay for adults to drink alcohol because they have better understanding and self-control. Because children and adults have different degrees of understanding, they need to follow different rules.)
Posted by Constipatron (Member # 8831) on :
Juxtapose,
Apologies accepted. I think I was typing slower than I was thinking and somehow got less into the post than what was intended; the occasional unfortunate, automatic assumption that people can read what I’m thinking between the lines without my typing it (I hear that’s generally a female problem, much to my dismay!). You have my apologies for not explaining my reasoning more clearly.
I agree that as social beings we rely on each other for quite a few things: teaching during our developmental years is somehow crucial (if done without ignorance) as is the very need to have friends, to share ideas, or to disagree peaceably. Once we’re born we’re almost hopelessly imprinted with our parent’s behaviors, beliefs, examples (to name a few) that all contribute to the traits we invariably inherit, develop or discard later in life. Or I should say, we’re exposed to it and unable to discern the differences till a greater level of conscience has developed.
I think maxims all have limitations of use - good for one application but not necessarily for another. We’re not bound to really find a ‘fix-all’ formula to cover everything. I agree that “if everyone else is doing X, it’s probably a good idea for me to do X also” does make a pretty poor justification for a lifetime commitment.
In my own pursuit of my own beliefs, moral code, or whatever you’d like to call it, I found that I could no longer stand on what my parents instilled upon me as a child. That was quite a while ago and I’m still trying to find my way. But, the tidbits I’ve been able to glean from my life experiences leads to my conclusions that I possess now and probably will change at a future time as I continue to progress, or digress.
That’s why I said what I said, that only the person searching can decide for themselves through intelligent searching, prayerful scripture study, or whatever other means. Coming from my point-of-view, take judgment at the end of this whole mess: say person X stands before God to take responsibility for his life, good or ill. Can that person stand on his friend Z’s experiences, habits, etc? Can someone say honestly that someone else caused X to do something or to believe in a certain thing? I think, yes and no; true, Z’s influence guided X’s life, to an extent, because he chose to let it influence him. And there’s the choice X made, thus taking Z’s example, making it his own and therefore responsible for himself before God. I think that’s what I was getting at, but then, I probably butchered my analogy to further compound the issue.
If worshiping God, or a non-entity was actually pointless, then I’d agree that the time spent in that worship would be better spent elsewhere. However, from my understanding, there’s no point to life without the reality of an after-life, a hope in a better world where things might actually make better sense. I think that’s one aspect of atheism that I’ve never really understood. If this life doesn’t mean anything down the road, what’s the point of living?
Well, religious faithful will undoubtedly have their own problems and struggles that non-believers have. They may even have a harder time of it because they’re trying to live a standard they don’t immediately see the result of. Believers definitely don’t have a monopoly on struggles, weaknesses, and faults. I should’ve said what I did a bit differently, because I know of a few people in my life that aren’t believers, yet live very structured and orderly lives. But on the other hand, I’ve seen non-believers lead very traumatic lives because they have no moorings to keep them from the troubles they experience. With God in their lives, is it safe to rule out that they could’ve done better than they had whereas their lack of Him in their lives contributed to a whole list of chaos and turmoil?
I will agree that non-believers have many directions to pick from. I often wish that I’d been born a non-believer before joining church because they seem to be somehow sturdier than those born into the Church. Their faith is that much stronger because they lived and searched, knowing what their lives were before they found God. To a degree I think some theists would lead chaotic, unstructured lives, but it’s definitely not the catchall phrase that I may have inadvertently implied. It’s entirely possible to believe that most people would live very sound lives were their no such thing as God or Satan. We learn through trial and error on our own without anyone tugging on our strings, so to speak.
I believe it is possible to convince others of the truth of my beliefs, but only if they’re in a frame of mind to receive it. In my experience, I haven’t come across anyone who’s converted from my own beliefs just from my sharing with them. I usually get the condescending nod and smile, accompanied with the pat on the head (exaggeration, sure…). I personally don’t know too much about C.S Lewis to really understand his conversion, but I can understand the concept of what you’re saying.
Ah, I'm probably mucking things up anyway. Sorry.
Posted by Constipatron (Member # 8831) on :
Javert,
I meant that when presented with the opportunity to ask God through prayer, sincerely, those I’ve come across balk, close up, or predictably become hostile towards me at the suggestion of asking a being they can’t physically see or touch. If they could look beyond the fallibility of man and their own weakness they might find something worthwhile. That’s what I meant, although I’m aware that not ALL people looking for religious answers will see it that way and not ALL knowledge or confirmation comes from some divine revelation. Takes time, I imagine, nothing’s immediate. Even St. Paul (all the twelve, for that matter) wasn’t immediately converted to God. Paul spent TWO YEARS in the wilderness, of which we can’t say for certain he experienced out there.
“If I call someone's belief illogical, it is only because they don't seem to make logical sense within their own framework. If I call someone's belief 'foolish' or 'stupid', I only do so if the believer is acting in those ways because of their belief.”
What makes logic or illogic? Both terms, I think, are very subjective to a person’s point-of-view, regardless of their personal beliefs. Were I to discuss things to a deeper level, it makes logical sense to me because everything falls in place, but then I may not see what I’m missing. I usually tend to admit when I don’t know something and I try not to discuss things I haven’t puzzled out myself, which involves asking others what they think. How is someone supposed to act if not because of his or her belief? If that’s all they know, they can hardly dissemble from it, can they? Not without great effort and possibly confusion.
Actually, what I meant in saying that there are many examples, parallels or witnesses to the existence of a God wasn’t quite how it came out. I look outward from my own being, to the things deep within the earth, those marvelous things around me, the people, animals, seasons, etc, to the cosmos beyond and think that with these things (only some of which can be fully explained by science) as witnesses to the reality of a supernal being. That’s what I meant, not that the mere volume of believers in Christianity, or any other religion validating its so-called truth. The more I learn about life and all that entails, I’m more and more convinced, or rather, I’m vindicated in my own knowledge that God does indeed exist.
Posted by Constipatron (Member # 8831) on :
Mucus,
Atheism and religion aren’t that hostile, true. Perhaps I used ‘hostile’ in the wrong sense. They’re definitely not seeking religious blood. Hostility takes many forms, even on-line, though it is on the low rung or not. I’m trying to understand atheism and other perspectives better these days. Those I know in person, however, tend to disregard my faith for naught without due consideration that I may have a point here and there.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Constipatron: I think that’s one aspect of atheism that I’ve never really understood. If this life doesn’t mean anything down the road, what’s the point of living?
If it helps you understand, from my POV, atheism is not about wish-fulfillment. It *might* be nice having an afterlife or reincarnation, but that does not necessarily make it true.
quote:Originally posted by Constipatron: I meant that when presented with the opportunity to ask God through prayer, sincerely, those I’ve come across balk, close up, or predictably become hostile towards me ...
Under what kind of circumstances did you present them with such an opportunity? Also, where?
[ March 25, 2008, 01:55 AM: Message edited by: Mucus ]
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I notice that my latest post hasn't been answered. Interesting.
Posted by Constipatron (Member # 8831) on :
Mucus, “If it helps you understand, from my POV, atheism is not about wish-fulfillment. It *might* be nice having an afterlife or reincarnation, but that does not necessarily make it true.” That’s understandable to see it that way. I’ve never really had a moment of doubt of an afterlife, myself. Especially when my grandmother and father passed away. I was drawn to the very question of whether I’d see them again or not. What conclusion I came to, through various experiences, the main one being mostly through prayer, was an surety that there is an afterlife and the scriptures concerning it are true: we, all of us, will be there. I can understand it’s a bit difficult to swallow from anyone who doesn’t believe in it, or sees it from the outside. The way the Spirit has worked in my life is key to understanding things not yet tangible.
Usually when speaking to a non-believer, it was usually at their home or at work. The most recent example being a co-worker where we happened to get onto the topic of religion and it’s validity or invalidity. He said he was open to the topic, expressed interest in how religion works, but despite anything I said, point or no point, he couldn’t allow himself to take it further. *Shrug* I merely offered an alternative experiment for him, of which he had no desire to follow, to the point of some annoyance on his part, I think. That's fine with me, actually. I wasn't trying to convert him, or anyone else for that matter, in the least. Unlike many religious people I've met, I've no desire to yell 'hell and damnation' on someone who chooses not to believe what I believe. Arguement and condescention rarely convince anyone of the truth.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Constipatron: I merely offered an alternative experiment for him, of which he had no desire to follow, to the point of some annoyance on his part, I think. That's fine with me, actually.
Part of that annoyance, I would imagine, comes from your assumption that he (or your average non-believer) hasn't prayed sincerely for an answer.
Certainly some atheists have never prayed, and have no desire too.
But many, at least the overwhelming majority of those that I know and have met, have sincerely prayed for answers from your or any other god. And received nothing in response.
I have done so myself. On numerous occasions. And, to be honest, it gets tedious.
So when someone tells me that all I need to do is pray, I admit to being a bit annoyed sometimes too.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:No, it doesn't.
Yes, it does.
(Isn't arguing so much easier when you skip the part where you give logic to back up your assertions?)
Okay-- I'll go first, and invite you to give your reasoning afterwards.
quote:being all-knowing and all-powerful necessarily implies that one is good.
Knowledge and power do not lend themselves naturally to good behavior. History is filled with people(s) whose power corrupts their good intentions; or whose power makes their greedy intentions a reality, and makes everyone around them miserable.
I do not grant that maximum knowledge and maximum control over one's surroundings/circumstances implies inherent (or inherited) goodness. I think that unless you add some caveats to your original statement (e.g., 'The presence of omniscience and omnipotence define "good."), it is inherently, plainly, obviously false.
***I think that good behavior, on the other hand, will lead, eventually, to both omniscience and omnipotence-- with omnipotence being defined as 'able to control all that can be controlled.' It's a very Mormon-centric belief, though.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote: I don't think I have oversimplyfied, I think that according to biblical literature and its current interpretations answer me this: If an individual completely rejects jesus's sacrifice, rejects god, rejects the bible and all morals that supposedly stemming from it completely in heart and soul what happens to this person when he dies?
Can anyone answer this?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
In Mormon theology, it depends on how much the person knows about Jesus' sacrifice. Greater knowledge about Christ and his gospel imparts greater moral responsibility, and graver consequences when those responsibilities aren't met.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
What about if I put Richard Dawkins as an example? Or any average 21st North American who meets my criteria?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
My answer would still be the same.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: In Mormon theology, it depends on how much the person knows about Jesus' sacrifice. Greater knowledge about Christ and his gospel imparts greater moral responsibility, and graver consequences when those responsibilities aren't met.
Then shouldn't the answer be, if you want to save everyone, to never tell anyone about Christ ever again? Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I notice that my latest post hasn't been answered. Interesting.
The most interesting part is that it has been answered. Read more, post less, Blayne. You're embarrassing yourself.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Blayne/Scott R: For the record, Richard Dawkins (and a fair number of atheists including myself for that matter) do not "reject" these things.
We do not "reject" God, God doesn't *exist*. For that matter, he doesn't believe that Christ existed in the way that Christ is normally depicted or that the "good" morals in the Bible come from a non-human source. Describing atheists as "rejecting God" is kind of missing the point. (it also places undue emphasis on the Christian God for that matter)
quote:Originally posted by Constipatron: ... Usually when speaking to a non-believer ... but despite anything I said, point or no point, he couldn’t allow himself to take it further.
The problem is that you've conflated as you put it "opportunity to ask God through prayer" with "you asking him to pray/convert". Many people have a distinctly negative view of active attempts to convert and/or missionaries.
[ March 25, 2008, 10:05 AM: Message edited by: Mucus ]
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: I notice that my latest post hasn't been answered. Interesting.
I have a post on page 2 addressed to you in part, that you never specifically answered. Sometimes people simply miss things.
KOM: In regards to my mistakes.
1:
quote:"having a claim to love" and "punishing for not loving". The first is reasonable. The second is evil.
It could be evil except that to neglect to express love for God is synonymous with cultivating a self absorbed personality and a general enmity for others. Those attributes eventually without fail express themselves in terrible ways worthy of punishment. Hence when we neglect to love God to the fullest meaning of that phrase we find ourselves deserving of reproof.
2:
quote:Second, you are taking as - hah - Gospel that your god is indeed required for life. For this you have only the word of your god, whose goodness, and therewith truthfulness, you should not be assuming for this discussion
Well I have the word of my God and the fact that you and me are alive discussing this very point. It's hardly possible much less reasonable for God to turn off the switch and then tell us all, "See see?" My point was not to posit that God must exist for life to occur, it was to explain that at least for the Christian God, since he claims to be our spiritual father, were that true it would hardly warrant a neutral attitude towards him initially.
3:
quote:Third, you are failing to address the point I made, namely that even the actual giving of life, creation if you prefer, does not give you the right to demand love and punish if it is not received. Even for an infallible creator.
I disagree. Since God claims to have created us and has instilled a part of himself in us, to not love him at all is to not love one's self completely. Part of the reason we can love at all is that that is part of the nature God has given us. Now sure you will contend that you do not believe God exists at all and therefore He is completely uninvolved in who you are, but again my point is that just creating us, given the fact that there is joy to be found in the human experience in of itself warrants some adoration if there is indeed a creator. So yes, for simply creating us God deserves love, and since failing to love him involves becoming a defective member of society, he can rightfully punish those who do not love him.
We've already talked numerous times on the point of people who know not God and are therefore entitled to some mercy when they sin.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Javert, not really. Because the related theology is if you don't have the opportunities given to you to know and follow Jesus Christ than you can never acheive more than the lowest eternal common denominator. In other words, you would be one step closer to the worst state of existance - Outer Darkness. That is achieved by conscious rebellion against God.
In other words, the more you have then the more you get. The more you fail and the more you fall. The less you have, the less you will get even if you can lose less. Ever read the parable of the Talents in the New Testament? Basically the same idea.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert:
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: In Mormon theology, it depends on how much the person knows about Jesus' sacrifice. Greater knowledge about Christ and his gospel imparts greater moral responsibility, and graver consequences when those responsibilities aren't met.
Then shouldn't the answer be, if you want to save everyone, to never tell anyone about Christ ever again?
Er...salvation works a little differently in Mormonism than in other religions, I think.
Eventually, everyone will have to make a choice about whether they will follow Christ or not. Much of our education about Him may not come in this life. It is not a given, within Mormonism, that the next life will be easier than this one to make that choice; we will still have free will and opposition.
We tell people now about Christ because we believe knowledge about Him can make people happier than they could be without him. (For some value of happy.)
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
I was kidding, Occasional.
quote:It could be evil except that to neglect to express love for God is synonymous with cultivating a self absorbed personality and a general enmity for others.
No it's not.
Neglecting to express love for a specific person/entity does not make you self absorbed by default.
Neglecting to love anyone other than yourself does that. Unless you definition for god is "everyone else", in which case you're using a strange definition.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Neglecting to love anyone other than yourself does that. Unless you definition for god is "everyone else", in which case you're using a strange definition.
Well... I won't say that God is everyone else.
But rememeber: Inasmuch as ye have done it unto the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:Neglecting to love anyone other than yourself does that. Unless you definition for god is "everyone else", in which case you're using a strange definition.
Well... I won't say that God is everyone else.
But rememeber: Inasmuch as ye have done it unto the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.
So as long as I love all people I'm covered?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Whether or not you're 'covered', Scott pretty clearly addressed your original point, Javert.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Whether or not you're 'covered', Scott pretty clearly addressed your original point, Javert.
Maybe a bit. But I can still love everyone on the planet and still not love your (or Scott's, or anyone else's) god. And that in no way makes me concerned only with myself. (Which I think is one of BlackBlade's points.)
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:So as long as I love all people I'm covered?
I don't know. It's not my call.
From the same sermon I took my quote from, Christ says that it doesn't matter whether or not you know it's Him you're serving; your place in the afterlife is determined by how you treat people. However, he says in Mark 16 that belief in Him (along with baptism) is essential to salvation.
Mormonism puts strong emphasis on works-- both daily righteousness (loving/helping others) and ordinances (baptism). I think both are necessary for salvation, but I'm not at all sure about the quantity or mixture of each.
Nor do I care much. It's not up to me to judge others' worthiness. That's a duty I'm willing to leave to God.
Posted by Sid Meier (Member # 6965) on :
I saw alot of next and I do not believe I saw my name written anywhere depicting that its a response to my thing.
My eyesight has gotten really bad lately so ive been trying not to strain my vision, but basically I do not believe that my question as been answered correctly, the answer I am looking for is thus:
If one in your view rejects God does he go to Hell? This should be a fairly yes or no kind of answer and shouldn't take more then a sentence to answer, if it takes 4-5 paragraphs to answer then something is wrong with your answer.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
What do you mean, "rejects God?"
How much did the person know about God before he rejected him? What kind of influences pushed him toward rejecting God? When he rejected God, had he previously loved God?
The scenario you posed needs some more crunchiness.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:If this life doesn’t mean anything down the road, what’s the point of living?
I think this is a very good question. But I think a better way of asking it is this: if we're only alive for the sake of the end of the road, what's the point of living? Why not just start at the end?
If the journey itself has no value, why travel? Why visit Paris if you're just going to come back home?
Posted by Sid Meier (Member # 6965) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: What do you mean, "rejects God?"
How much did the person know about God before he rejected him? What kind of influences pushed him toward rejecting God? When he rejected God, had he previously loved God?
The scenario you posed needs some more crunchiness.
Okay, lets put it this way, you have person A who knows about Christianity, who knows about Christ, and knows that in theory he sacrificed himself for everyone else's sins, who has seen a bible, knows about it, knows about the dead sea scrolls, but has only read parts of it. Who upon considering everything considers all of it a waste of time, does not believe in Jesus's supposed ed message, doesn't believe that the Judeo Christian God exists, and considers organized religion fraud at worst and profound wastes of time at best.
And you have Person B, who is for random example a Baptist, tries to show person A about Gods everlasting love, tries to talk to him about Jesus, engage him in conversation and at times even against person A's wishes prays for him even openly infront of him despite A's obvious ire, and goes as far as trying to invite him or her into bible studies etc.
Person A, while touched that a friend would go so far for him/her still respectfully declines while not openly saying he rejects Jesus's message he/she nonetheless prefers valid ethics to biblical morals, rejects organized religion doesn;t believe jesus is god or a form of god or even a holy person of any way shape or form, and doesn't believe that god as humans currently know it exists the way people think god or god(s) exist.
Is that specific enough for you?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
The question about how much the person knew about God is not really meant as, "How many facts and ideas about a given religion does the guy know?" It's a question between the person and God.
You can't look at a guy and say, "He knew all about God but rejects Him. He is going to hell." That's not something us meatbags can gauge.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
In response to Sid Meier: If a person who previously felt like they knew God rejected him, would they even want to go to heaven, where they would be with God? Wouldn't they have also rejected the desire to be in heaven, much less believe in it?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I think what he's actually asking is, "Would this person be sentenced to eternal damnation and torment," more than, "Does he go to heaven or hell?"
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Okay-- I'll go first, and invite you to give your reasoning afterwards.
I gave my reasoning in my first post. Here is what I attempted to argue:
"After all, if there is standard of "good" against which God could be measured, it would have to be an objective fact not only what is good but also that good itself is good. In order to be all-knowing, God would have to always know both what is good and also that good is preferable to not good. Given this, it logically follows that God would always intend to do good.
So that would only leave the possibility that God intends good but is somehow unable to do it. That directly conflicts with the omnipotence of God. If God knows what good is and knows that good is preferable to not good, and if God can do anything He intends to do, then He would definitely do good."
quote:Knowledge and power do not lend themselves naturally to good behavior. History is filled with people(s) whose power corrupts their good intentions; or whose power makes their greedy intentions a reality, and makes everyone around them miserable.
I don't think we can use any human example as a comparison because, although some humans can be more powerful or knowledgeable than others, none come anywhere close to being omniscient or omnipotent. In the case of knowledge, there have been many people who are extremely extremely knowledgable by human standards, yet clearly still did not understand what was good or saw the benefit to being good. That's in part because understanding what is right and wrong can be far trickier than scientific or other academic knowledge, because it essentially involves trying to predict the future consequences of actions. An omniscient being would perfectly understand those consequences in a way no human ever could. In the case of power, there's a similar problem. People who abuse their power are not really all-powerful. They are more powerful than the average human being, but at the very least they lack some power of self-control. Excessive power also seems to distort a person's view of the world - that is to say, I think it prevents them from understanding goodness, among other things, correctly. They see things as right which aren't right at all. I don't think this would be an issue with God, since He is supposed to be all-powerful AND all-knowing at the same time. He can't really have a distorted view of the world; his viewpoint is supposed to be perfectly accurate.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Thanks for explaining, Tresopax.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I think what he's actually asking is, "Would this person be sentenced to eternal damnation and torment," more than, "Does he go to heaven or hell?"
Well, I think the underlying question is, "Will we as believers in God write someone off as hellbound if they reject God?"
My answer to that is no. Or at least, we'd better not. No person can possibly make that call for another person. If we do try to, we are in a world of hurt.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: 1:
quote:"having a claim to love" and "punishing for not loving". The first is reasonable. The second is evil.
It could be evil except that to neglect to express love for God is synonymous with cultivating a self absorbed personality and a general enmity for others. Those attributes eventually without fail express themselves in terrible ways worthy of punishment. Hence when we neglect to love God to the fullest meaning of that phrase we find ourselves deserving of reproof.
Right. You have now redefined "loving your god" in such a way that it just means "being a decent human being". I do not think this is a reasonable use of the words in question.
quote:2:
quote:Second, you are taking as - hah - Gospel that your god is indeed required for life. For this you have only the word of your god, whose goodness, and therewith truthfulness, you should not be assuming for this discussion
Well I have the word of my God and the fact that you and me are alive discussing this very point. It's hardly possible much less reasonable for God to turn off the switch and then tell us all, "See see?" My point was not to posit that God must exist for life to occur, it was to explain that at least for the Christian God, since he claims to be our spiritual father, were that true it would hardly warrant a neutral attitude towards him initially.
You are conflating two issues. One issue: For the purposes of this discussion, please cease to assume the truthfulness of your god. Your "and the fact that we are alive now" is completely circular. The only way this is evidence of your god's claim to have created us is if your god is truthful in claiming to have created us. Second issue: Claims to love from creation, which I address below.
quote:3:
quote:Third, you are failing to address the point I made, namely that even the actual giving of life, creation if you prefer, does not give you the right to demand love and punish if it is not received. Even for an infallible creator.
I disagree. Since God claims to have created us and has instilled a part of himself in us, to not love him at all is to not love one's self completely.
Yes, well? I have many flaws, which I see no need to love.
quote:Part of the reason we can love at all is that that is part of the nature God has given us.
Sez... your god. Do I really have to belabor this point again? A further point: According to your god, part of the reason we can kill is that it is part of the nature your god claims to have given us. Does it follow that we should kill your god? (Assuming for the moment that we were able to do so.)
quote: Now sure you will contend that you do not believe God exists at all and therefore He is completely uninvolved in who you are, but again my point is that just creating us, given the fact that there is joy to be found in the human experience in of itself warrants some adoration if there is indeed a creator.
Once more: Your god may reasonably have a claim to some gratitude. Maybe, maybe not; you can argue it either way. But that does not give it the right to punish if it does not receive such gratitude. And as for love, that's not under conscious control anyway; I can no more choose to love than I can choose to be sexually attracted to men. (And as a side note, I did actually attempt this once, and it didn't work.) What sort of creature demands, on pain of infinite punishment, something that is worthless unless freely given, and that in some cases cannot be given whether freely or not?
NB: I am assuming in this paragraph the usual English meaning of the word 'love'. If you want to use some other meaning, could you please use the paraphrase? For example, if you want "love God" to mean "play Dance Dance Revolution every Saturday", please use the latter phrase and not the former.
As a side note, you did not respond to my point about source criticism.
Posted by Constipatron (Member # 8831) on :
Javert,
I actually didn’t assume that he hadn’t prayed about the gospel. In fact, I’d actually asked him if he HAD prayed about it and the answer was ‘no. I don’t think I have to’ or something to that affect. That’s fine with me though; I suggested that he give it a try, that he might be surprised to learn that God is there and the gospel is true. Whether someone believes in God or not, prayer’s still a valid form of ‘research’, if you will, to find truth to an issue.
I think, perhaps, that the real test is in the listening for a response. God doesn’t necessarily answer our prayers when we want them, or in the fashion we would choose. Part of it has to do with learning patience and a willingness to continue in all diligence until an answer is received. Prayer is work and I know, from personal experiences, that it can get really difficult and tedious, especially the last two or three years for me, where I’ve basically stopped praying. Not because of a lack of belief on my part, but more due to my assumption that He doesn’t want to hear from someone who’s descended to my level, never mind the amount of scripture that teaches the exact opposite of my assumption.
In the end I try not to assume too much about someone I’m talking to about the gospel. That would be very condescending, indeed. I think the emphasis about prayer should be placed on the listening instead of praying more and more, harder and harder. But I certainly can’t say for anyone other than myself. I know prayer merits a response from God, on His timetable, but I tend to be too thick when it comes to actually listening.
I can understand being annoyed too. I feel the same when people automatically assume that because I’m part of a particular religion that I’m going to hell, or some rubbish like that. Very UN-CHRISTIAN of them, don’t you think?
Posted by Constipatron (Member # 8831) on :
Mucus,
Hmm… my asking him to pray wasn’t in an attempt to convert but to honestly refer him to the best source I could think of for a verifiable answer. Anyone can read scriptures and anyone can listen to someone else’s beliefs, etc, but until they go to the source, then that’s all they’re doing: reading, listening to others opinions/beliefs (not a bad thing to do, though, don’t get me wrong). If he had tried it and received no answer and he acts according to that experience, I’d have had no problem with that. If he had converted, that would’ve been awesome, but it’s his choice, not mine. I think it was more an attempt to give him the best, most honest answer I could think of, without trying to sound like a preacher (I know they can be really annoying).
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:You have now redefined "loving your god" in such a way that it just means "being a decent human being". I do not think this is a reasonable use of the words in question.
Perhaps that is why you find it so difficult to understand how Christians can reasonably accept their faith...
The link between loving God and loving other human beings is fundamental to Christianity - far more so than any of the "political" issues that Christianity is involved in today, such as gay marriage, evolution, or abortion. I believe the love of God and the love of one's neighbors are inseperably connected. After all, the central story of Christianity is about when God came down to earth and literally was one of our neighbors.
This is what Christianity is all about, in my view. It is not about judging other people or their actions, and it is not about trying to pass some sort of moral test to get into heaven. Rather, it is about the relationship we are supposed to have with God and our fellow human beings, if we are to be happy and if we are to do good in the world. It is about how "being a decent human being" and "loving God" are virtually the same thing.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Tres, I know perfectly well that you love nothing better than to redefine words in any way that will let you win on argument, or even just have an argument, preferably on semantics. That's why I generally ignore you. One more time: If you intend to indicate "Playing Dance Dance Revolution", say so. Don't call it "Loving God". That way madness lies.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
Unrelated to everything else, I haven't' read everything yet, but a thought occurred to me:
As a human being, I've had thoughts, sometimes evil, sometimes not quite as evil as that, that some groups of people are evil enough to deserve destruction. Or at least need to be dealt with far more firmly than they are being dealt with in this anarchic world.
And that, beyond individual humans who deserve death.
When I realize that, if I had the power, even I would be tempted to do such things in the face of seemingly true evil, without perfect knowledge, how could I ever argue that an omnipotent entity, if it existed, who knew the hearts of all beings as the Christian god is defined as being, is not allowed to do so if said god feels it the best choice?
Claiming such would make me a hypocrite, wouldn't it?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
KoM, I'd just like to point out that your statement that you cannot consciously choose who to love or be attracted to is not, in fact, a given.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Tres, I know perfectly well that you love nothing better than to redefine words in any way that will let you win on argument, or even just have an argument, preferably on semantics.
No, you need to go back and question your assumptions - what you "know perfectly well" is false. Think again about what Christians may mean when they equate loving God and acting decently towards others. It has virtually nothing at all to do with definitions or words.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: KoM, I'd just like to point out that your statement that you cannot consciously choose who to love or be attracted to is not, in fact, a given.
I think it's a reasonable assertion, unless you can meet a stranger on the street and instantly love them, in any meaningful more than "I love everyone" kind of way.
What you *can* do, however, is make choices that make it more likely that you'll come to love someone, such as spending time with them, performing kind acts for them, etc. It's like choosing to have cancer vs. choosing to smoke. You may want to have cancer (for some reason) and you may choose to smoke to get cancer, but there is no guarantee that cancer will occur. It's not a choice that you have.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:No, you need to go back and question your assumptions - what you "know perfectly well" is false. Think again about what Christians may mean when they equate loving God and acting decently towards others. It has virtually nothing at all to do with definitions or words.
You are conflating "loving god" with "doing what god wants me to do." People often express their love for god in a specific, individual way - "I love God" which is similar in sentiment to how they express their love for their family members. Heck, sometimes they make even more explicit - "I love God because He sent His son to die for my sins." They are talking about a feeling about God as an individual, not about their behavior to others, though they will often credit their feeling about God for their behavior to others.
Posted by Stormie (Member # 11545) on :
Love is an act of the will.
Jesus doesn't measure love in units of feelings. He measures love in units of obedience.
He alluded to this throughout the gospels.
quote:John 14
15 If you love me, keep my commandments. ____________________
John 5
2 In this we know that we love the children of God: when we love God, and keep his commandments.
____________________
3 John 15
10 If you keep my commandments, you shall abide in my love; as I also have kept my Father's commandments, and do abide in his love.
____________________
4 John 14
21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them; he it is that loveth me. And he that loveth me, shall be loved of my Father: and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.
The commandments involve more than feeling a certain way. They instruct us in our actions, teaching us how to act toward God and one another.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Jesus doesn't measure love in units of feelings. He measures love in units of obedience.
Can you think of any reason that love should be measured in units of obedience?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Well...I'm not enamored of the units of obedience bit, but there's a good point to what Stormie says.
Love of God requires not just feeling, but action. We can't just say we want to help the poor and destitute; we have to actually be up and about it.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Tom, I wonder if you're being intentionally obtuse, or if I just read that quote differently.
When he said 'units of obedience', I read that to mean, "Loves through action, not just intent."
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
So we're not talking an unconditional love on God's part, then?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Whats the conversion rate between kilobediences and feeling furlongs? I seem to have misplaced my calculator.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
That's not necessarily true. Just because something is measured does not mean it starts at zero, after all.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Love of God requires not just feeling, but action
Love of anything requres action more than feeling. Love is action, not some sort of passive feeling, and it compells attendant actions.
I've never seen love that I would recognize as such equated to obedience though. There's a huge difference to me between seeing the love in how someone acts versus "If you love me, you'll always do what I say."
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stormie: Love is an act of the will.
I would love to see your evidence for this. I don't think love is an act of the will, any more than belief is.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Love of anything requres action more than feeling. Love is action, not some sort of passive feeling, and it compells attendant actions.
Amen.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote: I've never seen love that I would recognize as such equated to obedience though.
Of course not. I'm not sure that's what was being said, though. The way I read it (and it's a minority opinion, it seems), the obedience being referred to is obedience to the idea of treating people with love.
God commands us to love our neighbor according to many traditions, and since love is not just a feeling, God might measure one's love by 'units of obedience', i.e. how often they live it.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:God commands us to love our neighbor according to many traditions, and since love is not just a feeling, God might measure one's love by 'units of obedience', i.e. how often they live it.
That doesn't make sense to. If you are loving your neighbor as obedience to a command, you aren't loving them in a way I recognize.
If you wouldn't "love" them absent a command to do so, it's not love. If you would, it's not obedience.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: If you are loving your neighbor as obedience to a command, you aren't loving them in a way I recognize.
How is that not in contradiction to what you posted that I agreed with before?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:If you would, it's not obedience.
Huh?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Because you're doing it anyway, not because you were told to.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: If you are loving your neighbor as obedience to a command, you aren't loving them in a way I recognize.
How is that not in contradiction to what you posted that I agreed with before?
I don't see how it is in contradiction.
Love is done for it's own sake and the sake of the loved thing. It can't be done because someone else tells you to.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Why? As you said, love is an action, not an emotion. Motivation is only somewhat relevant.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I'm not sure I understand your thinking. It's not a question of motivation. It's a matter of not doing the thing without doing the thing. You can't love without loving and love implies that you are focused on and engaged with the loved thing. This isn't something you can do for an external reason.
You can't love a person because you parents want you to. You can't love someone because you are afraid of being alone. You can only fake it if that's how you come at it.
The most you can do is try to love someone by trying to see what it is in them that is lovable. But I don't think that that's something you can really do for a third party either.
---
Also, for me, in almost all cases, motivation is part of action. An action that is done for one reason is fundamentally different from one that it is done for another.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I disagree. Doing loving things for someone will cause you feel loving towards them.
However, I would agree that doing lovings things halfheartedly (which is likely in all the scenarios you painted) won't do much.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
"Doing loving things for someone will cause you feel loving towards them. "
The one doesn't equal the other.
You can certainly do loving actions, without meaning them. Sure, there is a correlation, especially considering how altruistic many actions we consider loving are, but it's rather easy to do an action one will consider loving, without feeling love. Many other reason to do such things, many of them not positive, others at least partially do.
I don't mean doing the act in a halfhearted manner. But you don't magically feel love for someone because you do something one considers nice for them.
Unless we're using some squishy definition of a loving act, where by definition it means an act done out of love. Then, it's just a tautology...
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by 0Megabyte: But you don't magically feel love for someone because you do something one considers nice for them.
One something? Not a noticeable amount, sure.
Many somethings? Then I would say that it does.
Posted by Stormie (Member # 11545) on :
Which man showed the greatest love?
Scenario: An old woman sits on a street corner covered with oozing sores. She's hungry and penniless.
Three imperfect men walk by:
#1) Bob sees her plight, and feels great love for her in his heart and thinks about her throughout the day, but he doesn't pray for her and doesn't do anything to alleviate her plight.
2) Joe sees her and is disgusted by her appearance. Even though he knows that it's uncharitable, his first reaction is to run away from her .. . because, ew, she's just so gross. Then, he remembers that when he feeds the hungry, he is feeding Jesus. So, despite having no feelings of love toward the woman (just repugnance), he stops and gives her a loaf of bread. He's poor, so this is no small sacrifice.
#3) Frank sees the womam and feels neutral about her plight. He intends to walk by her, but just then he sees several people from his church sitting at the outdoor cafe across the way. So, he raises his hands and loudly storms the heavens, asking God to bless her. He reaches in his pocket, waving a $100 bill in the air for all to see. Then he hands it to the woman, telling her that he loves her and God loves her too. ___________________________
Questions to think about:
1. Which man/men has done as God commanded?
2. Which man showed the greater love toward God? Why?
3. How did Bob's feelings of love help the woman?
4. Did Joe's lack of feelings come between him and his Christian duty?
5. Frank helped the woman as commanded, but, did he do it out of love of God?
6. Who helped the woman the most? Why?
7. Who did the least amount to help the woman? Why? _____
I don't know where this is going, if anywhere, but I thought I'd throw it out there.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Going back a page, Mucus: "We do not "reject" God, God doesn't *exist*."
Unless He does, in which case you *do* reject God.
Is this incorrect? If not, then your argument is about what you *know* and what we *don't* know.
You reject His existence, I reject His non-existence.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Going back a page, Mucus: "We do not "reject" God, God doesn't *exist*."
Unless He does, in which case you *do* reject God.
Is this incorrect? If not, then your argument is about what you *know* and what we *don't* know.
You reject His existence, I reject His non-existence.
Only if it would be fair to say that you reject Allah, Vishnu, leprechauns and centaurs.
Do you reject those things, or do you just not believe they exist?
If you want to say that you reject leprechauns, I will have no problem saying I reject your god. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I have no difficulty imagining Resh loudly exclaiming, in the middle of an otherwise empty room, "Screw you, leprechauns!"
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
But in today's political climate, rejecting is not enough. You also have to denounce, renounce, repudiate, and cast out.
Resh, you do that for the Fantasy Encyclopedia and we'll just talk amongst ourselves.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Doing loving things for someone will cause you feel loving towards them.
I think this is unlikely if you are doing them to fulfill some external conditions/mandate, unless, of course, the external forces are relatively weak. But even then, I don't know that I'd call the cognitive dissonance reducing reactions love.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Resh: Javert has it. Atheists don't "reject" God anymore than we reject Santa Claus, Cthullu, Vishnu, etc. We can't reject something that doesn't exist. We can reject your teachings, your writings, and your way of life. Those are things that exist. But God itself? Not so much.
Its an subtle issue with the language itself. Like say, in the abortion debate, the biased language of the paired terms "pro-choice" and "anti-choice." Both assume that choice is the important factor at work in order to subliminally(?) cast the latter choice in a bad light simply by the language used.
Heck, the term doesn't even necessarily make sense for atheists that have grown up as atheists without ever encountering the idea of the Christian God. How can you reject something that not only doesn't exist but that you've never heard of? Bah.
(By contrast, it could be said that Satanists reject God, they accept the existence of God but choose to worship something else.)
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
To be fair, I reject Resh's god. But then, I'm not an athiest. I'm willing to grant the idea that his god may exist. I just think that that god is evil, if he does exist, and thus reject him on a provisional basis.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:The most you can do is try to love someone by trying to see what it is in them that is lovable. But I don't think that that's something you can really do for a third party either.
Hmm. I guess I define 'obedience' differently-I need to look up the precise definitions, but I don't consider primary intention to be necessary for obedience.
If, for example, a child eats his broccoli like his parents tell him to, but does it because he enjoys it (obviously some mutant child here; keep an eye on him), I would still consider that child obedient in that area.
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
For me that's not obedient. He would be obedient if the primary reason behind his action would be "because my parents told me so". If you're posting on this forum because you want to, and I say "post on this forum", the two don't actually influence each other. It's just a coincidence.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:- You there, Strawberry. Hit a home run. - Sure thing Skip. *crack* - I told him to do that.
If someone had never heard of Jesus, but lived his life with love for his neighbor, could you measure this love in units of obedience?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I wish you could measure obedience in units of love, personally.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:If someone had never heard of Jesus, but lived his life with love for his neighbor, could you measure this love in units of obedience?
Seeing as how I believe God speaks to everyone, not just those who have heard of Jesus, and tries to help us love our neighbor, sure Mr. Squicky, I think it could be measured that way. Not by me, obviously.
-------
quote:For me that's not obedient. He would be obedient if the primary reason behind his action would be "because my parents told me so". If you're posting on this forum because you want to, and I say "post on this forum", the two don't actually influence each other. It's just a coincidence.
OK, how about this: I obey the laws against theft, murder, rape, assault, arson, and a bunch of other things for a variety of reasons. Almost universally I adhere to the law because I think it's the right thing to do.
I'm obeying the law, of course. I'm obedient to the rules of my society, not because it is the rule of society, but for other reasons.
I am still obedient to a given order or commandment, even if I obey for a reason beyond, "I was told to."
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:OK, how about this: I obey the laws against theft, murder, rape, assault, arson, and a bunch of other things for a variety of reasons. Almost universally I adhere to the law because I think it's the right thing to do.
I'm obeying the law, of course. I'm obedient to the rules of my society, not because it is the rule of society, but for other reasons.
No, I don't see that you are. Your behavior conforms with it, but, to me, obeying someone implies an active component, not passively going along with what they said.
Are you obeying laws that you've never heard of just because you are not breaking them?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Basically it comes down to this: loving thy neighbor because God told you to? Well, that's better than nothing (and for some people, it seems like it'd be a lot, actually), but it's not enough.
Loving thy neighbor because you want to be the sort of person who loves they neighbor, because God has asked you to, along with a bunch of persuasive reasons? That's a good thing, and it's got little if anything to do with being forced.
-----------
To Matt's point earlier, which I forgot to address: obviously to love someone specifically, you need to know them specifically to some extent. I didn't mean to say that we can choose who we love as in, "That guy I passed in my car on the way to work who I've never met before and never will again, I love him from the bottom of my heart, now and forever."
Of course not. That would be impossible. But I believe you can pick a person you know, get to know them, and work until you love them. I don't mean it's easy, I mean it's possible.
Love doesn't have to be something that just happens to us, like a rainy day or a cold or something.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:No, I don't see that you are. Your behavior conforms with it, but, to me, obeying someone implies an active component, not passively going along with what they said.
There was nothing passive about the example I gave, Mr. Squicky.
To clarify further, among the list of reasons why I don't do those things is that they are against the law, and I generally respect the law; also that I do not wish to be subject to penalties for breaking them. Those things just aren't the first reason I don't murder people who displease me.
Am I obeying the law?
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
Hmm I see what you're saying. I think the problem comes from the word itself; I see "obey" as "act because of someone else's wish", and not "act in the same way as someone else's wish". Whether or not you act in the same way as a stipulated law is a different thing from knowing about the law. I respect a lot of laws I don't understand; but when I understand them and I choose to act that way because they agree with my philosophical/economical system, I'm not merely obeying the law anymore.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
That's fine. In that case, I'd say you are obeying the law.
What about when you've never heard of the law?
---
Also, as I started out with, loving someone is fundamentally different from something like obeying the law.
Loving contains the action in itself. Loving denotes an engagement in the loved thing. You can't have love without this engagement.
You can't love someone because someone told you to any more than you can appreciate a piece of art because someone told you to.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:...I'm not merely obeying the law anymore.
Emphasis mine.
Does the commandment to love thy neighbor say, "Love thy neighbor only because I tell you"?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Love in a measure of obedience, hm? Love is being a lapdog, I guess.
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:...I'm not merely obeying the law anymore.
Emphasis mine.
Does the commandment to love thy neighbor say, "Love thy neighbor only because I tell you"?
Nope. I'm not saying the commandment is wrong, or that it implies that. I'm just saying that I see the "units of obedience" as possibly meaning "if you act as I tell you", not "if you act in the same direction as the commandment". You probably see the second, and I have absolutely no problem with measuring it that way. I just don't see it as obedience, that's all.
Edit: Modified to add quote.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Love in a measure of obedience, hm? Love is being a lapdog, I guess.
After all, everyone knows that obeying someone makes you their lapdog.
*rolleyes*
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I wish you could measure obedience in units of love, personally.
Curious, why? (For that matter, I'm still confused as to how one would go about defining units of love)
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert: Only if it would be fair to say that you reject Allah, Vishnu, leprechauns and centaurs.
Do you reject those things, or do you just not believe they exist?
If you want to say that you reject leprechauns, I will have no problem saying I reject your god.
Like someone elsesaid, I guess it's a matter of semantics. I reject that leprechauns exist, though they might, or might once have. I don't simply reject them outright. To say "I can't reject your God because I can't reject something that doesn't exist..." that's just a tricky way of saying: "You believe in something that isn't real, and I can't even have a conversation with someone like you who believes in things like leprechauns. Your statements aren't even applicable to reality." Or something like that. It's obviously what you atheists believe. Let me guess, atheist isn't even an appropriate term because it implies that the starting point is theism? You're actually a realist, and I'm an a-realist, right?
It's all just word games designed to make yourself feel special. You can't change the fact that you cannot know if there is or is not a God, and so if you don't believe in Him and you're wrong, you have rejected Him. It makes you a little nervous to know that too, so you inflate yourselves to cover up your doubt. "I'm so smart, how could I possibly be wrong?" Or "Richard Dawkins and Charles Darwin were so smart, and I'm smart enough (as well as free from the thought-paralysis of religion) to recognize how smart they are that I know I'm not wrong."
If only that were true... Too bad for you it's not. You're not that smart, and neither is Dawkins or Gould.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: I reject that leprechauns exist, though they might, or might once have. I don't simply reject them outright.
Huh? I don't get the distinction you're trying to draw.
quote: To say "I can't reject your God because I can't reject something that doesn't exist..." that's just a tricky way of saying: "You believe in something that isn't real, and I can't even have a conversation with someone like you who believes in things like leprechauns. Your statements aren't even applicable to reality."
The context was how someone like Dawkins would describe themselves. We're talking about self-descriptions, not a conversation. Atheists literally do believe that God, indeed all gods, do not exist. Therefore, most atheists would not describe themselves as "rejecting God." It just doesn't make sense as a personal descriptor.
That said, I have no idea why you would think atheists think thats an impassable barrier to conversation.
quote: It's all just word games designed to make yourself feel special.
Incorrect. Its a matter of precision.
As I said, an atheist that was raised without knowledge of the Christian God would doubtfully self-describe as "rejecting God." It just doesn't make sense. In fact, I myself bordered on this territory for much of my early life, being more familiar with Chinese ancestor worship or Buddhism than the Christian God (albeit still not very familiar).
quote: You can't change the fact that you cannot know if there is or is not a God, and so if you don't believe in Him and you're wrong, you have rejected Him.
*shrug* You can't change the fact that you cannot know if there are or are not leprechauns, and so if you don't believe in leprechauns and you're wrong, you have rejected leprechauns.
Feeling lucky?
quote:It makes you a little nervous to know that too, so you inflate yourselves to cover up your doubt. "I'm so smart, how could I possibly be wrong?"
Huh. I was unaware that you're so nervous about not getting your Lucky Charms
But seriously, whatever emotions you *guess* I'm feeling have much more to do with whatever baggage you're carrying than how I really feel. Maybe you should look into your own reasons as to why you have to make these kinds of assumptions about how people feel.
Posted by Achilles (Member # 7741) on :
*feels rejected*
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: I reject that leprechauns exist, though they might, or might once have. I don't simply reject them outright.
Huh? I don't get the distinction you're trying to draw.
Hmm... now that I think about it, I don't think I do either.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)