Support NeoGAF

[Mumei]

thatsthejoke.jpg

(I know! That's why it had the :lol face.)

 

[Mgoblue201]

Mogblue, thanks for that bit of information! I knew that whales were descendants of land mammals, but I wasn't sure of the specifics, very informative.

It's a long article, but you should read this from Talk Origins because it offers a comprehensive argument for whale evolution. One thing that was surprising to me: whale embryos actually begin with nostrils like a mammal, which then migrate to the back of the head. This is exactly what we see in the fossil evidence. Obviously, Ernest Haeckel, who proposed that an embryo goes through each stage from its past evolutionary history, was discredited. But embryology is powerful evidence for evolution because the genome is filled with a series of "switches" when turned on during development. So evolution has a few options here. It can delete a switch entirely, or it can insert a switch later in development that tells a feature to turn off. In the evolutionary process, either is just as good. It's just a blind process. But to a creator, this would be nonsense. So organisms aren't designed separately. They're the accretion of past evolutionary history changed over time.

Some assignment I was doing the other day about dolphins encouraged me to read a section from Pliny the Elder's book about the natural world. In it he calls porpoises sea-pigs. He also says that dolphins have the tongue like swine. Of course, all cetaceans evolved from ungulates, of which pigs are a part. If only he knew how close he got to the truth...

Christianity isn't incoherent at all. It's all contained in one little book. Now Christendom on the other hand is a mess.

Who of us "progressive types" is ignoring the holy texts? Have I? If you think so, you've called wrong.

Then why can't you tell me why your interpretation of the word yom is the correct one? If it be applied to a length of time with definite ends, then that should be easy to prove, right?

 

[Mgoblue201]

Just diving late into this thread and have most definetly missed a good deal, but there seems to be some who want to deal with the Bible as a scientific book as opposed to what it is actually is a religous text. You wouldn't look up a scientific to research about God no more than you would look up the Bible to research about the how the world works, etc. Science deal with the how, Religion deal with the why. Genesis is not meant to be taken as an exact account of how the world was made step by step, but is meant to explain God's role in creation and about man's separation with him, no more and no less.

That's a huge misnomer that keeps getting repeated. Any nonbeliever who knows what he's arguing should not demand that the Bible become a science book. But it's not hard to think that the Bible should be a factual book. And Genesis frankly does not make any sense. If you try to interpret it literally, as many believers actually do, then you contradict facts. But if you try to interpret it symbolically, then it ceases to make any sense whatsoever. It doesn't mean anything. It can't possibly correspond to anything that actually happened.

And if you argue that the author was just trying to understand god's act of creation and put it into words, then it still doesn't make any sense. I've read many ancient writings from those who tried to understand processes beyond their scientific knowledge. As I was just saying with Pliny the Elder, some of them actually came sort of close to the truth. And when they were off, they were off in ways that could usually be understood. But with Genesis, it's really hard to say that it's just some story when it's pretty clear about its intentions but still gets things wrong. And what is Noah's ark supposed to mean? The entire thing is physically impossible and can't possibly correspond to anything that actually happened, not to mention the writer had a naive idea about rainbows and pretty much just made stuff up.

 

[JGS]

Then why can't you tell me why your interpretation of the word yom is the correct one? If it be applied to a length of time with definite ends, then that should be easy to prove, right?

I did. It means day. That's not an interpretation, it's a translation. Everyone knows what day means.

 

[JGS]

I quoted the "I need to believe in one" because that gives a hint to how you view the question of "god" and "religion". It implies that religious belief is a prerequisite for you. So you shopped around, and found the one you liked the most. Which works great for something to make you feel better, but doesn't work that well for finding out whether something is true or not (and like the link I posted, those are two very different discussions).

If you believe in God, worship of him would be a requisite so not sure why that is something odd. Further the one religion that is true is the one that makes you feel better regardless of whether you agree or disagree with some of it's tenets. You go for the right answers not the favorite ones.

Thinking there's one true religion should be a logical assumption for any religious person. Oterwise, we would gravitate toward the easiest one. None of them being true is the logical assumption of the non-believer which is why they think all of them are the same and condemn all of them.

Quite frankly, you've created your own requirement system of religion that doesn't hold water.

Is this a way of saying "the bible and religion is fine, it's just people that have problems with it"?

That seems like saying "Trickle down economics is fine, it's just that damn George Bush that messed it up", while ignoring the possibility that "trickle down economics" is flawed from the beginning, regardless of how it's "interpreted".

They're not the same comparison at all. To blame religion for something that was clearly social/cultural, & politically based is silly. Christianity has never condoned violence or mistreatment of other people.

So when there is mistreatment of other people, the obvious cause of it is the person's attitude. I could blame you right now for me being a Christian. I'm not sure why that would have any more weight than blaming Jesus' teachings for things not taught by him.

And of course, I think you already kind of admitted that it's not possible your religion could be wrong or inadequate. Your view of your religion is something you "need" to believe in and how no one should "rain on a parade". You approach it from a standpoint of "does this provide a positive feeling", and not from a standpoint of "are these claims true?". Due to this, the whole discussion with you on the bible, evolution, god's existence, is somewhat moot. Quoting the "I need to believe" and "why rain on my parade" was just a way to clarify that for anyone else reading

This is why it's pointless for you to quote something selectively. This argument also rests on the faulty premise you started that has you believeing that I picked my religion based on my preference- like Match.com for God. I didn't saying anything about the impossibility of my religion being wrong.

Rain on my parade was a clear joke to the other poster and it's interesting that's what you focused on rather than the rest of the paragrapg. Something tells me this is now hardwired in though, so it is what it is.

Well yes. As mentioned, "conservative" religious folks and "progressive" religious folks can all interpret things to back up their position. A simplistic example is basically this:

-Progressive Christians ignore the Old Testament, and focus on positive things Jesus said in the New Testament
-Conservative Christians ignore positive things Jesus said in the New Testament, and focus on rules set forth in the Old Testament.

Again, you are wrong about what I do.

I don't ignore the Old Testament at all. There's all kinds of good stuff in there so why ignore it?
I don't ignore the positive things about Jesus who is said to fulfill the old law. So the old law is not needed anymore but the teaching is the same- Follow me and prosper, don't follow me and die. Is that a positive enough message for you? Am I progressive or conservative?

A True Christian pays attention to all of it & follows the direction of Christ. People who don't do this would have a tough time being called Christian.

And since the character in the bible described as "god" is essentially bipolar, there's no way to determine which one is the "right" one. Each side can go all list wars to support their view. Of course, I'm happy to work with the "progressive" ones since we still share similar goals! But if we happen to be in a discussion specifically about the source of those views (such as this thread), I will still think that their religious thinking is equally as flawed as the "fundamentalists", even though they may be much nicer people overall.

This is incorrect. He is only bi-polar because you disagree with him in the first place. You're understanding of him has nothing to do with his right to outline what he wants us to do. The reality is that he is very consistent in his dealings with people in the Bible. Smite the bad ones, bless the good ones. Old Testament is hostoic proof of that, New testament is future fulfillment of that.

The primary difference between the two being that one was a literal nation (Israel), the other was not.

Atheism isn't a philosphy. Methodological Naturalism, Secular Humanism, some forms of Buddhism, etc. can all be philosophies that a lot of atheists have though.

I'm not the one saying it'ds a philosophy. I don't care what it is. That's a discussion that needs to happen in the atheist thread.

 

[Kinitari]

I don't know why I am doing this, but I am going to try and get back into this thread.

A few questions to the Religious! These are old questions, I just want to hear new people answering them.

1. Do you think worship of the correct deity is necessary to enter 'heaven'?

2. Do you believe in hell? And if so, what does it consist of?

3. Do you think a person that would be considered 'good' by western societies standards, could still go to 'hell' for not believing in the correct deity?

 

[soul creator]

If you believe in God, worship of him would be a requisite so not sure why that is something odd. Further the one religion that is true is the one that makes you feel better regardless of whether you agree or disagree with some of it's tenets. You go for the right answers not the favorite ones.

Actually, there's no reason that "belief in god" automatically means that it's something to be worshiped. I believe in the existence of millions of things that I don't worship. Of course, you have a "need to believe", so this partially causes you to ignore that possibility.

Thinking there's one true religion should be a logical assumption for any religious person.

Of course. But what I was mentioning is that you start off with the basis that there "has" to be one true religion, while ignoring the very real possibility that every supernatural religion has been incorrect. So no matter what contradictions or real world evidence is found, you will always find a way to rationalize it. As has been done throughout this thread.

Oterwise, we would gravitate toward the easiest one. None of them being true is the logical assumption of the non-believer which is why they think all of them are the same and condemn all of them.

You assume that a non-believer starts with the permanent assumption that none of them are true, when what tends to happen is that the non-believer arrived at the viewpoint that none of them are true ("true" in the normal sense of the word, not the way that religious people tend to use the word). And even if they are "default" atheists, in theory it would change based on evidence. I would be completely fascinated and relieved if there was an all powerful invisible being who had our best interests at heart, so I'd love to believe it.

Remember, a bunch of nonbelievers (including myself) were raised as religious. I'm not an atheist out of a "need to believe in atheism". I don't think evolution is a better explanation for my origins due to a "need to believe in human evolution". It just happens to be where the current evidence points to. I don't have an attachment to it either way. In fact, "need to believe" is precisely why religions are so popular, because it does attempt to satisfy that feeling (but as mentioned, this is a separate discussion from whether religious claims are actually true or not)

That's why I found "I only need to believe in one of them" interesting phrasing. You don't need to believe in one of them in any sort of logical sense. That's just your personal feelings. There's nothing necessarily "wrong" with you having those personal feelings, of course, but it just doesn't make for an interesting discussion. Which is why I kind of approach your views of various religious claims from more of a social/cultural/psychological standpoint, rather than any sort of normal evidence-based standpoint.

Quite frankly, you've created your own requirement system of religion that doesn't hold water.

They're not the same comparison at all. To blame religion for something that was clearly social/cultural, & politically based is silly. Christianity has never condoned violence or mistreatment of other people.

But the whole point is that religion has been a direct influence on social/cultural/political institutions for thousands of years. That's kind of why religion has been so popular. Christianity has "condoned" violence and mistreatment of people for years. The entire basis of the religion is that a certain human being needed to be violently killed in order to forgive us of our sins, after all.

Now, I'm sure Christianity version JGS ignores all the bad parts because JGS is probably a pretty good person, and that's great! I'm glad you don't follow along with the bad things your religion does. But that's your version. That's not a version described in plain language in the bible, since you yourself admit that a lot of creative interpretation is required to read the bible "correctly".

So when there is mistreatment of other people, the obvious cause of it is the person's attitude.

the whole point is that people's "attitudes" don't just pop up out of thin air. They're strongly influenced by external social/cultural factors. Like religion.

You've simply defined a religion as incapable of this, without any evidence-based reason why.

-if someone gives to the poor because the bible said so? Christianity +1
-if someone denies gay people rights because the bible said so? Humanity -1

Basically, the game is always rigged in religion and god's favor.

I could blame you right now for me being a Christian. I'm not sure why that would have any more weight than blaming Jesus' teachings for things not taught by him.

I thought Christianity involves more than just "things Jesus said"?

This is why it's pointless for you to quote something selectively. This argument also rests on the faulty premise you started that has you believeing that I picked my religion based on my preference- like Match.com for God. I didn't saying anything about the impossibility of my religion being wrong.

But you admitted that you started your "religious search" from the standpoint that one "has to be true". The whole point of being skeptic/rational/etc. is that you can operate from the standpoint that nothing "has" to be true. It only becomes true when independent evidence confirms it. Your "evidence" comes down to personal faith (which plenty of Christians admit to). Which is great for when finding something that "works for you", but is the absolute worst approach when it comes to finding out if something is factual or not.

It's why your rationalizations for Christianity are so convincing to you, even though the exact same rationalizations could be done for plenty of other religions. It's because Christianity "works" for you. Which is fine! But It has nothing to do with Christianity being true, so your "personal faith" and personal interpretations of biblical text don't make for very interesting discussion...unless the discussions is about psychological/social/cultural benefits of Christianity, not the actual claims of Christianity. Which is why I keep typing that, lol.

Rain on my parade was a clear joke to the other poster and it's interesting that's what you focused on rather than the rest of the paragrapg. Something tells me this is now hardwired in though, so it is what it is.

I took as a "truth said in jest" moment. After all, there are numerous people who do seriously use that as a defense of their religion. "It makes me feel better, so why you hating on it?"

Again, you are wrong about what I do.

I don't ignore the Old Testament at all. There's all kinds of good stuff in there so why ignore it?

You ignore the Old Testament when it conflicts with what you've already decided it should be. Which is why when the Old Testament has rules from God saying people should be stoned for XYZ, you wave it away. Because JGS' version of God would never do something barbaric like that, even though that's what the actual text plainly says.

Of course, I'm glad you do this, because a whole bunch of horrible things are in there. But it doesn't make for a very coherent discussion when you can just randomly decide "Nope, that part's metaphorical. Nope, that part only applied to the Jews, New Testament cancels it out".

I don't ignore the positive things about Jesus who is said to fulfill the old law. So the old law is not needed anymore but the teaching is the same- Follow me and prosper, don't follow me and die. Is that a positive enough message for you? Am I progressive or conservative?

See! The old law is not needed anymore. What evidence leads you to this? Jesus also says he came not to bring peace, but a sword. So does that mean he isn't the peace-loving guy he's painted as? Or is that part just a metaphor? How did we determine this?

Of course, there is no way to "determine" this. Which is why you have thousands of different Christian denominations, all contradicting each other. Of course, in your view it's not because the text is confusing, but because human beings are messed up. Doesn't match up with independent evidence, but this "works for you".

A True Christian pays attention to all of it & follows the direction of Christ. People who don't do this would have a tough time being called Christian.

Of course all those "bad" people did think they where following the "direction of Christ". They weren't following JGS' version of Christ, but they obviously believed that they were.

This is incorrect. He is only bi-polar because you disagree with him in the first place.

I think a more accurate statement as thought you don't think the character is bipolar because you have a need to believe (your words! ) in him in the first place.

I think he's bipolar because he kills all of humanity in a flood (unless you make the argument that all of humanity was "bad") in one part of the story, and then says we should love our neighbor in another part of the story. That's what the text describes, so that's what I go off of.

Of course, if you do make the argument that all of humanity was "bad", this would seem to conflict with your view that humans where specially and uniquely created by God.

But then you would just say we have free will or something, and excuse him from any responsibility for his creation. AKA, Christianity +1, Humanity -1.

You're understanding of him has nothing to do with his right to outline what he wants us to do. The reality is that he is very consistent in his dealings with people in the Bible. Smite the bad ones, bless the good ones. Old Testament is hostoic proof of that, New testament is future fulfillment of that.

The primary difference between the two being that one was a literal nation (Israel), the other was not.

What independently verifiable way did you use to understand that this god has a "right to outline what he wants to do"?

I'm not the one saying it'ds a philosophy. I don't care what it is. That's a discussion that needs to happen in the atheist thread.

fair enough.

 

[Agent Icebeezy]

I battle with this subject a lot, I tend to err on the side of not believing religion, but please hear me out. I could do this with a lot of stuff in the Bible, but I will work with something that I think most people know. The two witnesses in Revelations for example or pretty much the own chapter of Revelations. If we are witnessing these phenomena and they have already been written about, I have a hard time wrapping my head around the fact that people wouldn't conform with the most published book of all time, detailing this happening to the letter. If Fox News is broadcasting two people in Jerusalem spitting fire, am I to believe that, especially with their base, they won't be placing Scripture on the screen and calling in all religious experts.

I don't think I'm telling this all that way, but as I view things through a logical prism, a lot in the Bible strikes me as illogical and for that, I don't think I should be faulted for that, for not having faith because, like most people, we'd like tangible proof.

 

[JGS]

I don't know why I am doing this, but I am going to try and get back into this thread.

A few questions to the Religious! These are old questions, I just want to hear new people answering them.

1. Do you think worship of the correct deity is necessary to enter 'heaven'?

2. Do you believe in hell? And if so, what does it consist of?

3. Do you think a person that would be considered 'good' by western societies standards, could still go to 'hell' for not believing in the correct deity?

1. I think worship of the correct deity is required for life incliding possibly a resurrection back to life. What happens after that I'm personally a little hazy on.
2. Hell as eternal torment is not a Bible teaching. There are a couple of reference to eternal torment and both are tied to a parable (Lazurus) or highly symbolic language (Revelation). In contrast, they are dozens, if not hundreds of scriptures explaining people good or bad die all the time (Of course).
3. 2 answers 3

 

[Kinitari]

1. I think worship of the correct deity is required for life incliding possibly a resurrection back to life. What happens after that I'm personally a little hazy on.
2. Hell as eternal torment is not a Bible teaching. There are a couple of reference to eternal torment and both are tied to a parable (Lazurus) or highly symbolic language (Revelation). In contrast, they are dozens, if not hundreds of scriptures explaining people good or bad die all the time (Of course).
3. 2 answers 3

1. Er, fair enough.

2. I'll have to look into that, but i'll take your word for it. You still haven't really explained what hell is to you though.

3. Your 2 doesn't really answer 3 - would a good non-believer still go to your version of hell?

 

[Dude Abides]

Guess those of us debating with DeusTrinitas are gonna have to wait a while.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=392387

 

[ronito]

Guess those of us debating with DeusTrinitas are gonna have to wait a while.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=392387

poor guy was pre-destined to be banned.

 

[JGS]

Actually, there's no reason that "belief in god" automatically means that it's something to be worshiped. I believe in the existence of millions of things that I don't worship. Of course, you have a "need to believe", so this partially causes you to ignore that possibility.

This is true. The Bible is full of examples of people that acknowledged God's existence but didn't worship him. What's you point.

I recommend stop trying to make the beliefs of one guy into a commodity that represents all.

f course. But what I was mentioning is that you start off with the basis that there "has" to be one true religion, while ignoring the very real possibility that every supernatural religion has been incorrect. So no matter what contradictions or real world evidence is found, you will always find a way to rationalize it. As has been done throughout this thread.

I said I only have to believe in one. Maybe I'm wrong!:lol

You assume that a non-believer starts with the permanent assumption that none of them are true, when what tends to happen is that the non-believer arrived at the viewpoint that none of them are true ("true" in the normal sense of the word, not the way that religious people tend to use the word). And even if they are "default" atheists, in theory it would change based on evidence. I would be completely fascinated and relieved if there was an all powerful invisible being who had our best interests at heart, so I'd love to believe it.

My statement had no time reference on it. For all I know, a non-believer looked at all of them and found them lacking. I'm not quite sure why the implication would be that if they found them all lacking, then I should.

That's why I found "I only need to believe in one of them" interesting phrasing. You don't need to believe in one of them in any sort of logical sense. That's just your personal feelings. There's nothing necessarily "wrong" with you having those personal feelings, of course, but it just doesn't make for an interesting discussion. Which is why I kind of approach your views of various religious claims from more of a social/cultural/psychological standpoint, rather than any sort of normal evidence-based standpoint.

If you believe the Bible and believe in God, then you need to pick a religion that best matches what it says. There is no Scriptural reference to a person worshipping outside of a religious orginization. Much of the instruction received is by means of a Christian Church. The entire New Testament is based on that principle of groups of worshippers coming together in that worship.

But the whole point is that religion has been a direct influence on social/cultural/political institutions for thousands of years. That's kind of why religion has been so popular. Christianity has "condoned" violence and mistreatment of people for years. The entire basis of the religion is that a certain human being needed to be violently killed in order to forgive us of our sins, after all.

No human nature influences social/cultural/political institutions. It's also human nature to come up with excuses for our actions. Now if you can show me a verse that says Jesus herded blacks onto boats and beat them senseless for not picking enough cotton, then I'll apologize.

Now, I'm sure Christianity version JGS ignores all the bad parts because JGS is probably a pretty good person, and that's great! I'm glad you don't follow along with the bad things your religion does. But that's your version. That's not a version described in plain language in the bible, since you yourself admit that a lot of creative interpretation is required to read the bible "correctly".

At least try to read some of my posts (like the previous one:lol ) before you accuse of something. I've said on a number of occasions that it can be difficult to reconcile what God does with what our opinion is. So I'm not sure where this came from.

the whole point is that people's "attitudes" don't just pop up out of thin air. They're strongly influenced by external social/cultural factors. Like religion.

...like atheism, like evolution, like geology, like nationality, like commercialism, like [insert whatever else]....

You've simply defined a religion as incapable of this, without any evidence-based reason why.

-if someone gives to the poor because the bible said so? Christianity +1
-if someone denies gay people rights because the bible said so? Humanity -1

Where did the Bible deny rights to gay people?

I thought Christianity involves more than just "things Jesus said"?

Not sure what the context is.
Are you saying Jesus magically appeared to slave traders and wife beaters and told them they should do this?
or
Are you saying that on the sole basis of someone saying it, that Christianity is guilty?

But you admitted that you started your "religious search" from the standpoint that one "has to be true". The whole point of being skeptic/rational/etc. is that you can operate from the standpoint that nothing "has" to be true. It only becomes true when independent evidence confirms it. Your "evidence" comes down to personal faith (which plenty of Christians admit to). Which is great for when finding something that "works for you", but is the absolute worst approach when it comes to finding out if something is factual or not.

At least one does have to be true if you believe in God. I thought I addressed this.

It's why your rationalizations for Christianity are so convincing to you, even though the exact same rationalizations could be done for plenty of other religions. It's because Christianity "works" for you. Which is fine! But It has nothing to do with Christianity being true, so your "personal faith" and personal interpretations of biblical text don't make for very interesting discussion...unless the discussions is about psychological/social/cultural benefits of Christianity, not the actual claims of Christianity. Which is why I keep typing that, lol.

Not true. I don't go for what works for me. I go for what works. Again, I would settle for the lowest common denominator if it was a wroks for me attitude.

All of this is competely irrelevant to someone who isn't religious and probably to a good deal of people who are tied to religion by family or whatnot. To me it matters. If I thought Buddhism was the way to go, I'd be there.

Thank God, the rest of these are brief

You ignore the Old Testament when it conflicts with what you've already decided it should be. Which is why when the Old Testament has rules from God saying people should be stoned for XYZ, you wave it away. Because JGS' version of God would never do something barbaric like that, even though that's what the actual text plainly says.

Of course, I'm glad you do this, because a whole bunch of horrible things are in there. But it doesn't make for a very coherent discussion when you can just randomly decide "Nope, that part's metaphorical. Nope, that part only applied to the Jews, New Testament cancels it out".

*sigh*

I don't do ignore anything. You're so good at quoting whydidn't you quote where I ignored something in print?

See! The old law is not needed anymore. What evidence leads you to this? Jesus also says he came not to bring peace, but a sword. So does that mean he isn't the peace-loving guy he's painted as? Or is that part just a metaphor? How did we determine this?

He's a peace loving guy to his followers. Not sure where the idea came from that God and his son aren't partial to their followers. There are not partial to who they allow into the club.

Of course, there is no way to "determine" this. Which is why you have thousands of different Christian denominations, all contradicting each other. Of course, in your view it's not because the text is confusing, but because human beings are messed up. Doesn't match up with independent evidence, but this "works for you".

It's not difficult to figure out

Of course all those "bad" people did think they where following the "direction of Christ". They weren't following JGS' version of Christ, but they obviously believed that they were.

So does that mean I'm supposed to follow their lead or Christ's? Hmm

I think he's bipolar because he kills all of humanity in a flood (unless you make the argument that all of humanity was "bad") in one part of the story, and then says we should love our neighbor in another part of the story. That's what the text describes, so that's what I go off of.

He didn't kill all humanity. There was Noah and his family.
Anyone who wanted to could have walked on the big boat...until the door was closed. they just didn't believe it would happen. If the majority of them changed there mind like in Ninevah, he wouldn't have caused the flood to begin with.

Of more significance is why would what God does as a judge have anything to do with how we treat our neighbor? If we love our neighbor, we could tell them that a floods a comin'.

Of course, if you do make the argument that all of humanity was "bad", this would seem to conflict with your view that humans where specially and uniquely created by God.

Why can't God create people who are bad?

But then you would just say we have free will or something, and excuse him from any responsibility for his creation. AKA, Christianity +1, Humanity -1.

Thanks for telling me what I would say. I guess I don't have free will!:lol

What independently verifiable way did you use to understand that this god has a "right to outline what he wants to do"?

What independent verifiable way did your parents have to discipline you?:lol

 

[Dude Abides]

poor guy was pre-destined to be banned.

Trolling is just a consequence of God's benevolent gift of free will.

 

[Joel Was Right]

I understand this may urk a few people, but without having to go through all his posts, can anyone accurately and fairly try to surmise what Deus' points have been since he came to this thread for me please?

 

[JumpJeff84]

poor guy was pre-destined to be banned.

I can't help but feel partly responsible...

 

[Dude Abides]

I understand this may urk a few people, but without having to go through all his posts, can anyone accurately and fairly try to surmise what Deus' points have been since he came to this thread for me please?

That would take hours.

 

[Karram]

I'm intrested to know what's happening in the thread but I'm too lazy to read the last 4 pages because most replies are too long. So can someone tell me what's going on ?

 

[Shanadeus]

I'm intrested to know what's happening in the thread but I'm too lazy to read the last 4 pages because most replies are too long. So can someone tell me what's going on ?

Discussion about the bible and christianity, with some arguing about evolution and abiogenesis some pages back.

Pretty much.

 

[JGS]

I'm intrested to know what's happening in the thread but I'm too lazy to read the last 4 pages because most replies are too long. So can someone tell me what's going on ?

Atheists and religious people disagreeing. News at 11.

 

[EzLink]

And then there was one

Good luck JGS!

Anyone know if DTs ban is perma or not?

 

[JGS]

1. Er, fair enough.

2. I'll have to look into that, but i'll take your word for it. You still haven't really explained what hell is to you though.

3. Your 2 doesn't really answer 3 - would a good non-believer still go to your version of hell?

2. I tend to look at it as the grave and plenty of people including Jesus have gone to it, so it's unlikely to be a tormenting type of place.

3. If jesus went, then good people who are believers and non-believers go to Hell.

 

[JGS]

And then there was one

Good luck JGS!

Anyone know if DTs ban is perma or not?

What, did he get banned for being religious?:lol

 

[Peronthious]

Backseat modding seems to be the straw that broke the camel's back.

 

[Dever]

2. I tend to look at it as the grave and plenty of people including Jesus have gone to it, so it's unlikely to be a tormenting type of place.

3. If jesus went, then good people who are believers and non-believers go to Hell.

Regardless of whether it's a place of torment or not, do you feel God is just in dishing out infinite punishment for the finite crimes we've committed during our lifetimes?

 

[Chaplain]

Regardless of whether it's a place of torment or not, do you feel God is just in dishing out infinite punishment for the finite crimes we've committed during our lifetimes?

God says the soul that sins will surely die. Meaning, that once a person sins, they must pay for their sins with their soul. Jesus came to die to offer each person a way out of this payment. He died in our place for our sins. God says every man is guilty. The only way a persons sins can be forgiven is by repentance and belief in God's Son.

If a person dies without Christ they are judged for blasphemy of the God's Spirit. All sins can and will be forgiven except for the rejection of Jesus's payment on a persons behalf.

 

[CrazedArabMan]

What, did he get banned for being religious?:lol

There are still other religious people that will support you, but I'm not going back through the thread to figure out what everybody is saying to join in on the conversation. So I'll just wish you good luck and god speed...

 

[Dude Abides]

God says the soul that sins will surely die. Meaning, that once a person sins, they must pay for their sins with their soul. Jesus came to die to offer each person a way out of this payment. He died in our place for our sins. God says every man is guilty. The only way a persons sins can be forgiven is by repentance and belief in God's Son.

If a person dies without Christ they are judged for blasphemy of the God's Spirit. All sins can and will be forgiven except for the rejection of Jesus's payment on a persons behalf.

That is not responsive to the question. The question is whether God is just in imposing an infinite punishment to punish finite sins. The question is not what the punishment is, but whether the punishment fits the crimes.

 

[JGS]

Regardless of whether it's a place of torment or not, do you feel God is just in dishing out infinite punishment for the finite crimes we've committed during our lifetimes?

No. I don't believe in eternal punishment. and it's not just because I don't like the idea. The vast majority of scriptures alluding to death indicate that death itself is the final outcome.

Romans I think says wages sin pays is death. If that the payment, why would there be a surcharge of eternal punishment? If life is fitting for perfect people, then death for imperfect people seems logical. EDIT: Apparently beaten EDIT: Apparently not:lol

If I ever thought that God condoned eternal torment I would not worship him even if I still believed in him.....

Spoiler

But I sure as heck would try to fake it !

 

[EzLink]

No. I don't believe in eternal punishment. and it's not just because I don't like the idea. The vast majority of scriptures alluding to death indicate that death itself is the final outcome.

Romans I think says wages sin pays is death. If that the payment, why would there be a surcharge of eternal punishment? If life is fitting for perfect people, then death for imperfect people seems logical. EDIT: Apparently beaten EDIT: Apparently not:lol

If I ever thought that God condoned eternal torment I would not worship him even if I still believed in him.....

Spoiler

But I sure as heck would try to fake it !

Wait, then how do you interpret/get around all of the passages that clearly allude to hell as a place of eternal punishment?

EDIT: If I didn't believe that the vast majority of humans would suffer for all time I'd have a much easier time getting back to Christianity

 

[Sibylus]

No. I don't believe in eternal punishment. and it's not just because I don't like the idea. The vast majority of scriptures alluding to death indicate that death itself is the final outcome.

Romans I think says wages sin pays is death. If that the payment, why would there be a surcharge of eternal punishment? If life is fitting for perfect people, then death for imperfect people seems logical. EDIT: Apparently beaten EDIT: Apparently not:lol

If I ever thought that God condoned eternal torment I would not worship him even if I still believed in him.....

Spoiler

But I sure as heck would try to fake it !

Hmm, how would you respond to the Christians who would emphasize "second death" rhetoric in support of the concept of an eternal hell? My community consists mostly of such people, so I'm curious.

 

[JGS]

Hmm, how would you respond to the Christians who would emphasize "second death" rhetoric in support of the concept of an eternal hell? My community consists mostly of such people, so I'm curious.

I'm going off memory but the second death is tied to resurrection and final judgement. The ones who were part of a first resurrection qualified immediately and had no concerns about needing to be judged. In fact they would never be judged again ever. They are mentioned as kings so they have a pretty lofty spot above everyone else.

In contrast, the ones involved in the second resurrection also include unrightous ones. They died once and if they don't qualify they would die again (Second death), but this time permanently. Second death backs up the idea there is no eternal torment.

For the record, I veiw the entire account that mentions that scenario as symbolic.

 

[JGS]

Wait, then how do you interpret/get around all of the passages that clearly allude to hell as a place of eternal punishment?

EDIT: If I didn't believe that the vast majority of humans would suffer for all time I'd have a much easier time getting back to Christianity

Oops, double post

 

[JGS]

Wait, then how do you interpret/get around all of the passages that clearly allude to hell as a place of eternal punishment?

EDIT: If I didn't believe that the vast majority of humans would suffer for all time I'd have a much easier time getting back to Christianity

You'd have to tell me what the passages are. Most of them simply talk about eternal fire, not eternal torment which is very different, but people still mix the two up.

As to the other ones that I'm familiar with. The two primary places, The Lazarus parable & Revelation 20 something, are highly symbolic.

Something as severe as eternal torture would be clarified a lot better than that. There also would be know misunderstanding about what messing up does to you.

Torment doctrines were parts of older religions or concurrent religions and became a part of the great Christian compromise doctrine

Spoiler

I made that title up so no need to Wiki it

.

 

[jaxword]

What, did he get banned for being religious?:lol

Not that I'm an authority, but that was blatant trolling and homophobia on his part.


As for this thread, I've noticed a trend for the religious side to simply avoid certain questions...that's poor form.

 

[Zaptruder]

And then there was one

Good luck JGS!

Anyone know if DTs ban is perma or not?

Don't think so. The thread title said he was banned and lost thread starting privileges (which would mean that he's not perma banned, as you lose thread posting and starting privileges in that case).

 

[Zaptruder]

Let me ask you one thing JGS, and I want you to answer it as honestly as you can.

Do you think that there is any (amount and combination of) evidence, logic, or reasoning that can be presented that would cause you to drop your (or all) religion(s)?

 

[Shanadeus]

Okay, this whole discussion about Christianity and doctrines and whatnot is getting rather drawn out, so I'm going to pose a fresh question to people of all beliefs now.

I posted this in DeusTrinitas thread:

Man, if some religious people make a ruckus about gays just wanting to have equal rights, I wonder what'd happen in the future when more radical changes occur in society.

Like when polyamorous marriages are legalized in the nest 50-100 years or so.
Or when we've sufficiently genetically modified chimps, dolphins, octopuses and other animals into full sentience - if they object to heterosexual relationships they'll be raising hell at inter-species marriages.

Well right now they are most likely not up to our mental complexity, and there's really no way of proving that they are, so fucking a dolphin now would be akin to pedophilia.

But once we've genetically modified dolphins and given them means to communicate with us easier and in that manner shown that they are equal to us mentally - then they should be able to marry a human being as they now have personhood just like you and me.

And it got me thinking of how muslims, christians, hindus and people of other faiths think about the impending and radical changes which will happen in society due to our technology and capability developing.

What do you feel about the possibility of endless life extension with perfect health?
Would you yourself extend your life for as long as you could?

What do you think about either copying your consciousness into the virtual world while your biological body trucks on, or about a bit-by-bit method completely transforming your brain into an analogous artificial processor facilitating movement into a virtual existence without having to worry about being a copy?

About other species on this planet being "uplifted" and modified into intelligent beings rivaling ourselves? Would you extend the human rights to them or would you try to stop them from getting the rights that come with personhood and from being created to begin with?

EDIT: I also think it's time for an information thread by transhumanist-gaf.

 

[JGS]

Let me ask you one thing JGS, and I want you to answer it as honestly as you can.

:lol

I always answer honestly.

Do you think that there is any (amount and combination of) evidence, logic, or reasoning that can be presented that would cause you to drop your (or all) religion(s)?

Sure. People lose faith all the time & I'm definitely not the exception.

In reality though, it would actually require proof of a conspiracy, something that can't be proven and something I don't think would be possible with a book like the Bible even if the writers tried.

 

[JGS]

What do you feel about the possibility of endless life extension with perfect health?
Would you yourself extend your life for as long as you could?

Of course. I do that now.

What do you think about either copying your consciousness into the virtual world while your biological body trucks on, or about a bit-by-bit method completely transforming your brain into an analogous artificial processor facilitating movement into a virtual existence without having to worry about being a copy?

This one I'd have to understand before I answer, but I think I'm leaning toward I would not di what is being described.

About other species on this planet being "uplifted" and modified into intelligent beings rivaling ourselves? Would you extend the human rights to them or would you try to stop them from getting the rights that come with personhood and from being created to begin with?

This reminds me of the if our food could talk thread. :lol
If they have our intelligence, I'm not sure why we would hold them back or even if we could. Fighting off some gun-toting elephant herds would be brutal.

 

[JGS]

Not that I'm an authority, but that was blatant trolling and homophobia on his part.


As for this thread, I've noticed a trend for the religious side to simply avoid certain questions...that's poor form.

I'm not sure about that. I try not to avoid certain question, but I do stop answering the same questions.

 

[Joel Was Right]

And it got me thinking of how muslims, christians, hindus and people of other faiths think about the impending and radical changes which will happen in society due to our technology and capability developing.

I think there is a shared belief amongst the Abrahamic faiths that eventually faith in God will deteriorate. This deterioration is believed to lead to a corruption of morals and the consequent state of society would spell out the beginning of the end. If you go to any religious forum, you will find fundamentalists whom believe the current state of the world now would apply - apparently the Second Coming is nigh. This attitude pushes some to reaffirm their conviction in the belief of God and his word in ever more vigorous/extreme forms i.e. increased resistance to gay rights, increased political radicalism etc

 

[Zaptruder]

:lol

I always answer honestly.


Sure. People lose faith all the time & I'm definitely not the exception.

In reality though, it would actually require proof of a conspiracy, something that can't be proven and something I don't think would be possible with a book like the Bible even if the writers tried.

Right. So, technically yes, practically no.

Well isn't that just the ideal answer... from your standpoint.

Of course it means the same to us; none of what we say is going to make a difference.

Spoiler

Which is what I've known all along, but to anyone else that thinks they can make an argument convincing enough of conversion, then forget about it. Dude isn't going to change his mind through intellectual exploration on a message board.

 

[JGS]

Right. So, technically yes, practically no.

Well isn't that just the ideal answer... from your standpoint.

Of course it means the same to us; none of what we say is going to make a difference.

Spoiler

Which is what I've known all along, but to anyone else that thinks they can make an argument convincing enough of conversion, then forget about it. Dude isn't going to change his mind through intellectual exploration on a message board.

How did I know my answer wouldn't satisfy.:lol

 

[Zaptruder]

How did I know my answer wouldn't satisfy.:lol

But of course it did. I wouldn't have expected you to answer any other way.

Ok, sure, it would've been more satisfying for you to have come out and say right out; no.

But if it were so simple, then we wouldn't have a 1500 post thread of which 200+ are yours.

 

[Mgoblue201]

I did. It means day. That's not an interpretation, it's a translation. Everyone knows what day means.

This really shouldn't be difficult. You say that the word can be used to refer to a period of time. Other Christians say that the word isn't used for a period of time with definite ends and furthermore that the creation story clearly establishes itself as a day by the use of clear demarcations of morning/day/evening/night.

This is incorrect. He is only bi-polar because you disagree with him in the first place. You're understanding of him has nothing to do with his right to outline what he wants us to do. The reality is that he is very consistent in his dealings with people in the Bible. Smite the bad ones, bless the good ones. Old Testament is hostoic proof of that, New testament is future fulfillment of that.

And who decides who is good and who is bad? Who says that what the recent militia group tried to do isn't good? What if they were simply carrying out god's judgment? Would you object? They have equal conviction that they doing god's will, and they'll find their confirmation in the Bible, where god may reserve the right to kill someone for any disobedience. All one has to do is judge your beliefs to be a gross perversion of god's will. Of course, I know that you'll defend your beliefs as the right beliefs, but so will everybody else, which makes the whole thing pointless.

Also, what's the point of talking about the Bible as some grand, unified book that could only come about through divine means? The entire thing is incredibly difficult to make sense of, disingenuous, almost lying when it comes to prophecy. Once again, I know that you'll claim otherwise, but you haven't exactly done the greatest job at explaining why certain beliefs are the correct ones and why no one could possibly confuse them if they "really" knew the Bible.

God says the soul that sins will surely die. Meaning, that once a person sins, they must pay for their sins with their soul. Jesus came to die to offer each person a way out of this payment. He died in our place for our sins. God says every man is guilty. The only way a persons sins can be forgiven is by repentance and belief in God's Son.

If a person dies without Christ they are judged for blasphemy of the God's Spirit. All sins can and will be forgiven except for the rejection of Jesus's payment on a persons behalf.

I didn't chose to sin. Maybe you have me confused with someone who made a sober, rational choice here, but it's kind of monstrous to curse the entire human race and then force them to take the cure or else.

 

[Mumei]

I'm considering picking up one of Richard Dawkins' books - either The Blind Watchmaker, The Selfish Gene, or The Ancester's Tale - but I cannot afford more than one, and I have absolutely no idea which one to get.

I figure that this topic would be a pretty good place to get recommendations, since I don't really think it merits a topic.

 

[jaxword]

it's kind of monstrous to curse the entire human race and then force them to take the cure or else.

You've hit the nail on the head here.

It is unethical for God to force people to agree to his terms, as he made people agree under duress. Also, deals out punishment to those who did not agree, removing all illusion of "choice."

God wants our love...or else.

 

[Mgoblue201]

I'm considering picking up one of Richard Dawkins' books - either The Blind Watchmaker, The Selfish Gene, or The Ancester's Tale - but I cannot afford more than one, and I have absolutely no idea which one to get.

I figure that this topic would be a pretty good place to get recommendations, since I don't really think it merits a topic.

I've only ever read The Greatest Show on Earth, which is a good argument for why evolution should be considered true to everybody but doesn't really address the more sophisticated ID or creationist arguments (which don't amount to much, but they do have the power to distort). If you want more of a theological or philosophical book, then I hear that The God Delusion isn't bad.

You've hit the nail on the head here.

It is unethical for God to force people to agree to his terms, as he made people agree under duress. Also, deals out punishment to those who did not agree, removing all illusion of "choice."

God wants our love...or else.

I think that a morality police god doesn't make sense in the first place. The believers want god to be so great that he transcends time, yet so much a part of this universe that he somehow cares about the petty cause and effect of human morality. The god described in the Bible seems very arcane to me, very much below the grand mysteries of something so big as the universe. But like PZ Myers said, it exploits our cognitive bias about love and sacrifice.

Anyway, I was more talking about the idea that inherited sin is an incoherent position. God can't condemn people for something that they didn't agree to do in the first place. Christianity tries to explain why the world is in the state that it's in, while offering salvation from that state, but it gets tripped up somewhere in the mediation between those two.

 

[JGS]

But of course it did. I wouldn't have expected you to answer any other way.

Ok, sure, it would've been more satisfying for you to have come out and say right out; no.

But if it were so simple, then we wouldn't have a 1500 post thread of which 200+ are yours.

That how many questions are asked of me. This is the only thread where people respond to me that much. I would probably have no more than 10 like in other non-LOST threads otherwise.

I can't say no because that would be impossible to say. It's called honesty (The thing you questioned whether I could do), confidence (That my decision is the correct one), & humility (To admit that I could be wrong about the whole thing.

It's called having an open mind to any number of possibilities and the fact that I've considered quite a number of them already. No need to go back unless something new happens.