Religion Revisited?

[Bethusda]

It has been proven that animals have a wide range of emotions. Saw some special on it once. Besides anger, there is joy, angst, guilt, etc., etc., etc.

Besides anyone close to a household pet knows that they have emotions.

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>

Besides anyone close to a household pet knows that they have emotions.

<hr></blockquote>

Ok, but none of here want to hear about how close Budner is with his house pets...(TOO MUCH INFORMATION)...la

 

[Guest]

<font color=blue>&gt;&gt;I think the laws of physics are referred to as laws because there's no negotiation or consideration of/on any type of idiosyncracies. They are defined and definite. </font color=blue>

I mostly agree. Until we get down to particle physics and the atomic where the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle begins to have an effect.

<font color=blue>&gt;&gt;Our definition is entirely biased, according to what we've accepted as being our own truth.</font color=blue>

We're in complete agreement here.

<font color=blue>&gt;&gt;. . . but can't with your defining 'god' as being the universe.</font color=blue>

That's not my definition. That's my extrapolation from the definition others give, assigning God a literal omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence. That definition of God would make it synonymous with the universe. If there is a God that is NOT the universe, it would not have those three "omnis."

<font color=blue>&gt;&gt; . . . but you have to admit the preponderance of evidence supports scientific data versus any type of God, in any form.</font color=blue>

I would admit that the preponderance of evidence supports science, as you say, and suggests that most of the concepts of God are incorrect. I would not say that all concepts of God are therefore shot down.

<font color=blue>&gt;&gt;Considering it was humans that assigned those attributes, I'd consider it safe to say that they're completely, entirely and undeniably fallible . . .</font color=blue>

Yep. No disagreement here.

<font color=blue>&gt;&gt; . . . and with regards to that, I think we could safely consider all of them balderdash, gobbledygook and fabricated.</font color=blue>

All? I'm afraid that I can't agree to that unconditionally. Consider, you are human, therefore undeniably fallible, therefore, by your own words, couldn't you'r denial of God also be considered balderdash, gobbledygook, and fabricated. I have a problem with absolutes when there are still a lot of unknowns. It takes too much faith for me to leap to that conclusion.

<font color=blue>&gt;&gt;Yet you don't seem to understand that a major reason we're 'turds' to one another is the belief in a 'god'.</font color=blue>

Oh, I understand what you're saying. But I don't think it's the major reason we're turds. I think the major reason is because we're selfish and think mostly of ourselves, and then transfer the blame to one of the flavors of made up gods.

Person A believes in God and does good to his neighbors. Persons B, C, and D believe in God and are ****s. Ascribing their -ness to their belief in God is circumstantial. Even if they swear on a stack of Bibles that God made them be ****s. What's happening is that they can't take responsibility for their own actions.

You make is sound like as soon as someone starts believing in God, it's down the tubes for that person.

<font color=blue>&gt;&gt;. . . but it has nothing to do with the FUNDAMENTAL (using your word here) need to have a purpose for your existance . . .</font color=blue>

Well, if we're going to come down to fundamental "purposes" for existence, it really gets to be simple. There are only two.

If there is a God, then there is some spiritual purpose to our existence, whatever it may be. It seems logical that making this world a better place is the best way one would earn their reward from whatever God or system they happen to believe in.

If there is NO God, then our purpose is to pass on our DNA to our offspring. It seems logical that making this world a better place is the best way to ensure that is done effectively.

Making this world a sucky place to live, goes against both God and nature, whichever you may have happened to have chosen, been born in, been brainwashed in, whatever.

 

[imported_snoopy]

<blockquote><hr>

If there is a God, then there is some spiritual purpose to our existence, whatever it may be. It seems logical that making this world a better place is the best way one would earn their reward from whatever God or system they happen to believe in.

<hr></blockquote>
This does not make logical sense. If there is a god, and this god had the power to create us with a purpose, and this god did create us with a purpose, and this god valued what our definition of a good world is (and there are a lot of definitions of those...just look at the difference between republican and socialist values), and there was some sort of a spirit to our being that lasted after our physical being has died, and this god wanted to reward us for whatever it was this god wanted us to do, then perhaps the best way to earn that reward is to behave the way that god wanted us to behave.

Assuming that there is this god, it has created us, we have a purpose, and we have a chance at some reward after we die, how do we really know what the desired behaviour is? There seems to be a lot of chaos in the universe...maybe anarchy is the way? There seems to be a natural order where 20% have and dominate 80%...maybe those who oppress others and get to the top have it right? There are lots of ways we could go are there not?

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>

If there is a God, then there is some spiritual purpose to our existence, whatever it may be. It seems logical that making this world a better place is the best way one would earn their reward from whatever God or system they happen to believe in.

<hr></blockquote>

oops, snoopy already got that one just nicely.

<blockquote><hr>

If there is NO God, then our purpose is to pass on our DNA to our offspring. It seems logical that making this world a better place is the best way to ensure that is done effectively.

<hr></blockquote>

Why is this a purpose?, where is the scientific law that states that humans must pass on DNA?, Isn't belief in some grander purpose of species survival also a belief system? Look in the other thread, wasn't really anyone willing to do what it takes to insure survival of the human race. Who does it hurt?, the people who lives? Nope, they live on...The people who are not yet concieved?, how could they be hurt when they do not exist.

In the end, without a belief of some sort, how can we have a purpose?


<blockquote><hr>

That definition of God would make it synonymous with the universe.

<hr></blockquote>

It could also be that God is more and beyond the universe as well.

 

[Ampmonster]

oh yeah or he/it is the universe.

 

[Guest]

eh, why exactly are you saying "or he/it is the universe", when that was what I was responding to....doubleconfetti.

 

[Wisty]

I see your point now.

&gt; Which brings me back to my point, why would god base 1 commandment (and argueable the most important one) on mans ever changing law?

He didn't. Though that depends upon "which" "god" you are listing. Each "god" has his/her/its own set of rules of which people/things that you are alllowed to defend yourself against. Some "gods" past and present let you "murder" and even "sacrifice" willy-nilly, or just willy-, if nilly is too tough. Etc.

Saddam doesn't follow the "Christian" God. And from what I gather he doesn't really follow the Islamic God either -- which supposedly is the same God, though I sometimes wonder because of the way he supposedly is worshiped. Anyhow, the "Christian" U.S. president went after Saddam because Saddam was breaking all the Freedom laws and Humanitarian laws most of which are based on the original Christian laws. The U.S. went to DEFEND Iraqi's who were being tortured, mutilated, and "murdered" -- many if not all were innocent victims. And because Saddam possibly could and would be a threat to the whole world later on, if he continued his regime/power.

Basically you would be comparing apples and -filled-oranges when comparing U.S. and Saddam, because U.S. was doing a humanitarian thing (Christian-based) whereas Saddam was doing a heinous thing (Islamic based, very loosely). The God that Pres. Bush worships is apparently not the god Saddam worships even though behind Saddam's twisted and tweaked interpretations of god, God is there, but Saddam cannot see Him.

Saddam murdered. The U.S. didn't "murder" anyone over in Iraq, and took great pains not to kill anyone who wasn't outright trying to kill U.S. and the Iraqi people themselves. Basically the U.S. went to defend and protect those who WOULD be murdered by Saddam/regime. I don't understand how you can equate them as the same, LC? Though I understand your basic concept, which is mostly that of passivism and anti- any one or few countries which go against U.N. to take on another country, even one as despicable as the Saddam regime. But outside of that, I'm not sure what you're trying to say, LC?

 

[Wisty]

Which is why I prefer Christianity to Saddam's form of "what's it": Christianity (the more sane and truth based) is a basic philosophy of Do good things to one another (healthy things, kind things, things which help people/earth to live long and happily, which ensure one's offspring lives long and happily); to find the truth in a situation and work with it rather than react selfishly; to cherish life; to take care of the children; to take care of the animals and planet; to think before acting (be wise not stupid; be wise not just selfish); and all those good things. Also, Christianity gives us free will, but along with that we also are ACCOUNTABLE for every act good, bad or indifferent. We can't blame God for armed robbery or raping or stealing an acquaintances belongings or cheating on the spouse, etc. We have free will.

I don't understand people who say people have a god so that they can blame him/her/it for whatever they do wrong. Maybe that's how their gods work. That's not how Christianity works. WE are accountable, not God. We can study the bible and learn how to live wisely/compassionately, or we can do it on our own -- we are still accountable for every act/thought/deed/misdeed.

Some people don't NEED a bible -- they come inbuilt with all the right qualities. I don't know if it's a long line of good genetics or just loving parents who had loving parents or God working in the family (the family being of the Blessed sort) or combination of all. Other people haven't a clue -- and could benefit greatly from reading the bible and doing some group therapy, whatever it takes to teach them how to treat other people and how to deal with situations as they arise. Though there are some people that all the bible lessons, all the church-going, and even therapy doesn't seem to improve -- genetically or something they've acquired after conception is permanently askew. Though I suppose if there is a "devil" that could be part of the scenario, too. I'm not real big on "devils." I'm bigger on abnormalities and injuries and illnesses. But who knows! As I said, there are just some things that go beyond illness, and make me really wonder if such a thing as "evil" really exists.

 

[imported_snoopy]

<blockquote><hr>

The U.S. didn't "murder" anyone over in Iraq, and took great pains not to kill anyone who wasn't outright trying to kill U.S. and the Iraqi people themselves.

<hr></blockquote>
You illegally invaded a soveriegn country...every single person who was killed (and many civillians died) was murdered by the US.

 

[Wisty]

&gt; You illegally invaded a soveriegn country...every single person who was killed (and many civillians died) was murdered by the US.

WHO killed those "many civilians"? U.S.? Or Saddam's regime and or those who were still brainwashed into following him, including shooting and bombing whomever in sight?

And how was it "illegal" when the country (aside from Saddam and his followers) WANTED to be FREED from Saddam? They've been wanting it for years -- and feared only that only so many steps would be taken, but not enough to rid Saddam forever.

It would be "murder" if the U.S. went to Iraq and killed anyone in sight, or didn't even try to protect the innocents.

So, if U.S./U.K. had had the U.N.'s blessings all along, then it would not be "murder" in your eyes?

I don't know what country you are living in, but let's say you're not in U.S. Let's say Saddam makes a comeback, but does so in YOUR country. Let's say he has joined ranks with enough other crazies to do severe damage to your country. Let's say the U.S. wants to go help you, but the U.N. says "NO!" So, let's say the U.S. does NOT go help you and hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians are MURDERED in your country by Saddam/group even though your country has ASKED U.S. for help. I bet you'd then be saying U.S. was a MURDERER for NOT going to your aid. Damned if do, damned if don't, why can't you folks finally figure this out?

 

[imported_snoopy]

<blockquote><hr>

WHO killed those "many civilians"?

<hr></blockquote>
I suspect that you are the only person on the planet who does not believe there was 'collateral' damage. I am not, however, talking only of civillians...every single military casualty was an act of murder on the part of your country as well.

<blockquote><hr>

And how was it "illegal" when the country (aside from Saddam and his followers) WANTED to be FREED from Saddam? They've been wanting it for years -- and feared only that only so many steps would be taken, but not enough to rid Saddam forever.

<hr></blockquote>
Are you going to change history and tell me that this was the reason your country went to war? That is not the chant your hawks had going before the war...that is not the reason countries like France were villified, and that is not the reason the citizens of your country backed a venture that will likely cost you over 200 billion by the time you are done (as well as hundreds of American lives).

<blockquote><hr>

So, if U.S./U.K. had had the U.N.'s blessings all along, then it would not be "murder" in your eyes?

<hr></blockquote>
The US would have had the UN blessing if the war was justifiable...it was not so it didn't get 'blessed'. I think it is dishonest to drag the good name of the people in the UK into this... 85% of them were against the war...say the US and Tony Blair if you want.

<blockquote><hr>

I don't know what country you are living in, but let's say you're not in U.S. Let's say Saddam makes a comeback, but does so in YOUR country.

<hr></blockquote>
We can play what if all day but I do not think that Saddam will be running Canada any time soon.

<blockquote><hr>

Let's say the U.S. wants to go help you, but the U.N. says "NO!"

<hr></blockquote>
Well...if a foreign invader occupied Canada I suspect that the UN would authorize action so I am not worried. Just because the UN does not act as your puppet and authorize what ever action you want to undertake does not mean that it will not intervene in just war scenarios.

There are a lot of 'let's say' and 'what if's in here but you don't justify killing people by saying 'what if'...this is the real world.

<blockquote><hr>

Damned if do, damned if don't, why can't you folks finally figure this out?

<hr></blockquote>
Why can't you folks figure out that your country did not go to war for humanitarian reasons...saying so after the fact does not make it true. If we are going to intervene in countries for humanitarian reasons (a concept I am not totally against), there are countries that would be far higher on the list.

 

[Guest]

Rwanda...
Why Bosnia over Rwanda? I'll never figure that one out...

 

[Mystery Meat]

from hermerrhoids, to religion, to theology, to science, to thermodynamics and fat people struggling to lose weight, to religion (again) and finally the war on Iraq and the UN....

*screams*

No wonder I need meds!!!

 

[imported_snoopy]

There is no doubt that the UN has missed the boat on more than a few occasions...I can't deny that. UN bashing is not valid in this scenario though.

 

[imported_snoopy]

From complaining about dull forums to complaining that they are all over the place...you need more than pills you silly redneck /php-bin/shared/images/icons/wink.gif

 

[Mystery Meat]

*leers at Snoopy* /php-bin/shared/images/icons/evild.gif

 

[Guest]

lol
Who to blame?? I pick L.C. Damn him to heck (I don't think he's here, we can talk crap). Who's with me???

Someone be with me....c'mon...

 

[Devin MacGregor]

<blockquote><hr>


But could you have stated an opposing argument without so many damn variables??


<hr></blockquote>

Holy****. It was a simple point that we define the laws as we come to understand them. That doesnt mean they are finite nor absolute. They evolve. Besides as a person who has been subject to diets all his f'n life I just might have an incite to what the "educated" people with their multiple diplomas have for eons used a cookie cutter approach, a one size fits all and why is that? Because their teachings of the time illustrated that A + B leads to C and nothing else. Science is just as susceptible(sp?) to fall into dogma. That doesnt prove Gawd exists but simply science can be hypocritical.

<blockquote><hr>


The circumstances wherein these laws were tested would have to be absolute as well. Taking different people with different metabolisms and trying to deny the laws of thermodynamics via a small study group based on nutritional observances does not a sound study make. IMO.


<hr></blockquote>

Fine and how much of our universe have we encountered to say that the Laws of Physics are absolute. Can you quantify the extent of our knowledge? What do you measure that on? How many planets have we been on? Other solar systems? Or do we have a rather small study group when compared to the whole of the universe? I certainly was not disputing, ie gravity but that we have not encountered all variables that can affect gravity. There were a lot of nervous men during our journey to the moon. Many of them scribbled mass amounts of numbers abound yet they were still nervous.

<blockquote><hr>


Can I summarize that you may be considering people small or close-minded? I absolutely agree.


<hr></blockquote>

Nope I give a whole lotta people the benefit of the doubt which has burnt me more times than not. I simply have run into a mess of athiest's who talk in absolutes and then try to point out that religion is wrong while ignoring the other question about themselves and do exactly what they say the thiests do. Look at Chippac above. I havent read his post but he is what? Blithering about science this or science that. I should have just cut and pasted from a science book for him to evangelize over. Does he get the point? I dont know. Should I read his post to mine? Probably not since I really dont care for spam. Netscape news is my homepage for netscape. It was simply on the front page and down and dirty as an example that science is ever EVOLVING. Hell if I opened up IE MSN would have came up... I cringe at what example would have popped up there that I could have got so we can get a science speech. Someone here once said Athiests weren't stupid to talk in absolutes well if one is saying Gawd absolutedly doesnt exist then stupid is as stupid does and I see a whole lotta enrollees at colleges that turn out to be stupids.

<blockquote><hr>


It's humorous that Leandra brought up the proposition to close the patent office, because that's one of the things I'd argue to prove your own point Devin. I have plenty of times before =P


<hr></blockquote>

That's nice. Bill Gates said that no one would need more than 64K of memory and many still think he is a genius and visionary of technology.

<blockquote><hr>


However, I think there might come a point where, based on scientific leaps, we can safely call those who believe in a god 'small-minded'.


<hr></blockquote>

I think that it is safe to say you simply make too much out of it in order to validate yourself. Gallop polls show that I have a chance in hell of ever being elected because people fear athiests more than the holyrollers. So thanks.

And I guess the variable of some scientist who doesnt put Gawd in a traditional J/C/I box could still believe in Gawd has not occurred to you? Am I safe to say you made a close minded comment? Or were you merely being careless in a sweeping generality?

<blockquote><hr>


Yeah, nothing is absolute, but how absolute do we have to get in order to succesfully debate the logical assumption that there is no god? The believers would have us PROVE he doesn't exist, like you earlier stated. But does there EVER come a point where we don't have to rely on proof that isn't going to manifest itself and instead rely on our own proof? There has to be a turning point somewhere in our evolution where we can do that. I hope.


<hr></blockquote>

There may never be. We simply cannot accurately state without any form of objectivity how much we actually know about our universe. Gawd simply isnt Gandalf but that does not conclude that Gawd does not exist. Gawd simply does not exist in the form that many Xians claim. Who knows when science reaches the point of knowing precisely and/or witnessing the force(s) that caused the "big bang" then perhaps at that moment they would have defined Gawd. The point will only ever come when we can accurately say we have encounted most that the universe has to offer.

So you can beat yourself up for the upteenth thread and try to act like you are going to convert them to your cause but then you become the very people I despise. The bastages that come knocking on my door at 8am on a Saturday asking me if I know Jesus. Yes, I know Jesus, he is doing 5-10 for grand theft auto. Now leave me alone.

I will probably not post much anymore in the coming weeks since I am gearing up to finish what I started several years ago. I have classes that start on the 4th at my main institution and this Saturday one at another that finally caps a lower degree. I have attempted to take this class twice before. I still have the two other textbooks so hopefully some theist and athiest wont be going at it as they have in the last two...world religions. I simply want a grade to complete my humanities section and dont want to sit and listen to two blither about who is more right. Its futile.

 

[Roscoe]

<font color=blue>This does not make logical sense. If there is a god, and this god had the power to create us with a purpose, and this god did create us with a purpose, and this god valued what our definition of a good world is (and there are a lot of definitions of those...just look at the difference between republican and socialist values), and there was some sort of a spirit to our being that lasted after our physical being has died, and this god wanted to reward us for whatever it was this god wanted us to do, then perhaps the best way to earn that reward is to behave the way that god wanted us to behave. </font color=blue>

Is it possible to consider that God created us to behave a certain way and that way has been corrupted?

<font color=blue>Assuming that there is this god, it has created us, we have a purpose, and we have a chance at some reward after we die, how do we really know what the desired behaviour is? </font color=blue>

Becaue he would communicate it to us. I like your assumption that if a god existed then he would be a communicative god. I very much believe that.

<font color=blue>There seems to be a lot of chaos in the universe... maybe anarchy is the way? There seems to be a natural order where 20% have and dominate 80%...maybe those who oppress others and get to the top have it right? There are lots of ways we could go are there not? </font color=blue>

We come back to the original question - is it possible that what we see today is a perversion of the original plan?

Of course now I expect a number of comments about how a sovreign, omnipotent, omniscient God could allow his perfect plan to get into disorder but I have to respond - so which do you want - to be an autonomaton (where God does not allow for us to make decisions contrary to his nature) or free will (where the potential to stray is there)?

 

[imported_snoopy]

<blockquote><hr>

Is it possible to consider that God created us to behave a certain way and that way has been corrupted?

<hr></blockquote>
What is your evidentiary basis for this statement?

<blockquote><hr>

I like your assumption that if a god existed then he would be a communicative god.

<hr></blockquote>
This is something I neither assume nor assert.

<blockquote><hr>

Of course now I expect a number of comments about how a sovreign, omnipotent, omniscient God could allow his perfect plan to get into disorder but I have to respond - so which do you want - to be an autonomaton (where God does not allow for us to make decisions contrary to his nature) or free will (where the potential to stray is there)?

<hr></blockquote>
Convince me that the deity exists before we argue about attributes.

As an aside, I find the free will defense reprehensible. You believe in a being that has the power to ease needless suffering yet chooses not to...in my eyes the thing that you think you worship is vile and perverse /php-bin/shared/images/icons/smile.gif

 

[Mystery Meat]

Amen. /php-bin/shared/images/icons/smile.gif

 

[Guest]

Wistaria...First of all, PLEASE go back and reread my post, I have no idea what post you're refering to, but most of it isn't mine.

And please show me of other 10 commandments than the ones I am talking about, I am talking about the Christian Gods 10 commandments, which has been interpreted lately as "you shall not murder", which is what I am talking about.

Why are you talking about Christians and Saddam...and about the Iraq invasion, I didn't mention the Iraq invasion whatsoever.

Your point was that Saddam is a murderer, which he's not, he didn't commit any illegal killings under Iraqie law as far as I can tell...if anything, you can call him an unjustified killer.

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>

I dont have a clue for a answer to your valid points. This is what Faith is about.

<hr></blockquote>

Very good and honest post.

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>

basic philosophy of Do good things to one another (healthy things, kind things, things which help people/earth to live long and happily, which ensure one's offspring lives long and happily)

<hr></blockquote>

Oh, which of the christian belief systems would that be?, catholics?, people like Jack Chick?...where exactly is the great christian masses making the world live long and happily?

<blockquote><hr>

to take care of the animals and planet

<hr></blockquote>

Please quote to me the christian doctrine that says we have to take care of animals and the planet.

<blockquote><hr>

That's not how Christianity works. WE are accountable, not God.

<hr></blockquote>

So you equate christianity now? Most christian beliefs contradict eachother horribly on this part, ranging from that the only thing we're accountable for is loving jesus (everything else doesn't matter), to obediance to a worldly leader.

<blockquote><hr>

We can't blame God

<hr></blockquote>

According to christians, God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresence (all powerful, all knowing and he's everywhere), which means, not only does he know ALL injustice that happens, he's also PRESENT when any injustice happens and he also has the POWER to STOP any injustice.

This makes him very much to blame, infinitly more so than any human in the same situation.

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>

WHO killed those "many civilians"?

<hr></blockquote>

The US, some as collateral and "accidental" damage (like when you bombed a city with nothing but civilians, because you supposedly believed that there was soldiers there, but there weren't any) and the greatest civilian losses are due to the lawlessness that the US invasion has carried with it, 100+ people die every day by various means.

<blockquote><hr>

WANTED to be FREED from Saddam?

<hr></blockquote>

Many did. But wanting better than Saddam != wanting the US to invade.

<blockquote><hr>

Let's say the U.S. wants to go help you, but the U.N. says "NO!"

<hr></blockquote>

Why exactly would the UN say no to helping a nation that has been invaded?

<blockquote><hr>

even though your country has ASKED U.S. for help.

<hr></blockquote>

Please show me where the Iraqie government asked the US to invade or please show me a document that shows the signature or other evidence that a majority of Iraqie citizens wanted the US to invade.

<blockquote><hr>

I bet you'd then be saying U.S. was a MURDERER for NOT going to your aid.

<hr></blockquote>

I doubt it, if we really would, then why aren't we calling you murderers now for all the nations you are not helping...heck you aren't even helping the nations which are in much MUCH worse shape than Iraq ever was...try and go to Congo, 3.3 million men, women and children have been killed there.

<blockquote><hr>

Damned if do, damned if don't, why can't you folks finally figure this out?

<hr></blockquote>

We have figured that one out, its a stupid excuse to use in these kind of situations.

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>

Why Bosnia over Rwanda? I'll never figure that one out...

<hr></blockquote>

Mostly because as a continent, Africa is a low priority continent and because the estimated deathtoll on troops would have been massive at that time. Would I have wished they'd gone in there?, yes I would.

Bosnia was high priority, because of the ethnic fighting could potentially have spread beyond its borders, because it was in Europes backyard and several other reasons.

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>

Is it possible to consider that God created us to behave a certain way and that way has been corrupted?

<hr></blockquote>

God is all powerful, all knowing and present everywhere, so if we're corrupted, then its because he's WANTING to let us stay that way.

<blockquote><hr>

Becaue he would communicate it to us.

<hr></blockquote>

So, which are Gods communications and which aren't?

<blockquote><hr>

so which do you want - to be an autonomaton (where God does not allow for us to make decisions contrary to his nature) or free will (where the potential to stray is there)?

<hr></blockquote>

Its pretty simple, if free will is what is desired, then he can just clearly state what is his plan (and since he's omnipotent and omniscient, he would be able to state it in a way that everyone could clearly understand it, why would he create humans that doesn't understand his plan?) and then let us choose for ourselves.

And again, please state to us Gods plan and please tell us why what YOU see as Gods plan is anymore real or valid than the other guys idea of what is Gods plan.

 

[Roscoe]

If you are willing to except your own ideal of human behavior as evidence then that's it.

I have no desire to convince you - but I'm certainly willing to discuss God's attributes.

 

[imported_snoopy]

<blockquote><hr>

I have no desire to convince you

<hr></blockquote>
I suspect you would very much like to be able to convince me and everyone like me...it would validate your belief. Unfortunately (for you) there is at present no way for you to to convince me because there is no basis for your religion so you must take the 'I have no desire' stance rather than admit that, at least right now, your god doesn't exist.

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>

As an aside, I find the free will defense reprehensible. You believe in a being that has the power to ease needless suffering yet chooses not to...in my eyes the thing that you think you worship is vile and perverse

<hr></blockquote>

The problem you are looking at is suffering is very subjective, and varies. God may see humans as thriving and not suffering. Humans as a whole are thriving and populating the earth in a steady pace, how is that suffering?

 

[Roscoe]

<font color=blue>I suspect you would very much like to be able to convince me and everyone like me...</font color=blue>

When I was younger and full of piss and vinegar I certainly felt that way. But do to the mellowing effects of age and further development of my thought process - this is no longer the case. I do, however, enjoy arguing my point of view and even defending my point of view.

<font color=blue>...it would validate your belief. </font color=blue>

No - truth is truth whether I or you believe it or not. My beliefs are validated simply by yielding to the truth. I'm willing to be the only one who believes as I do.

<font color=blue>no way for you to to convince me </font color=blue>

I know - that's why I'm not trying as opposed to the following...

<font color=blue>because there is no basis for your religion so you must take the 'I have no desire' stance rather than admit that, at least right now, your god doesn't exist. </font color=blue>

You're free to be wrong if you wish.

 

[Roscoe]

<font color=blue>The problem you are looking at is suffering is very subjective, and varies.</font color=blue>

God did do something about suffering - if people choose to reject it isn't that their own problem?

 

[imported_snoopy]

Tell that to someone dying an agonizing death from a disease, or that innocent kid who lost his arms and legs in Iraq, or the 3 million people who have recently died in that country in Africa, or the over 100k ppl who were hacked to death with machete`s in Rwanda (my mom was there 2 days after that happened and showed me pictures...it was horrible), or the millions who have starved to death in the Ethiopia famines (again...I saw pictures of piles of thousands of bodies...awful), or the millions of children who are physically and sexually abused in our society. I could do this for lines and lines and lines.

Were I to allow even a hair of this stuff to happen to my kids I would be rightfully thrown in jail and be looked upon very harshly by society. If this suffering is part of your god's plan, then it is cruel. If it is not but it has the power to intervene, then it is negligent. The human suffering that went on under Hitler's watch is minimal compared to what theists believe their deity has overseen. If your god does not see this as suffering, then it is ignorant.

 

[imported_snoopy]

How nice...allow them to suffer but give them a reward after that. What a petty jelous god that only takes care of certain of his children, and only after a lifetime of possibly suffering.

 

[Guest]

<font color=blue>&gt;&gt;This does not make logical sense. If there is a god, and this god had the power to create us with a purpose, and this god did create us with a purpose, and this god valued what our definition of a good world is (and there are a lot of definitions of those...just look at the difference between republican and socialist values) . . . </font color=blue>

I don't recall making the claim it would be "our" definition of what a good world would be.

<font color=blue> . . . and there was some sort of a spirit to our being that lasted after our physical being has died, and this god wanted to reward us for whatever it was this god wanted us to do, then perhaps the best way to earn that reward is to behave the way that god wanted us to behave.</font color=blue>

Exactly. If there was a God, almost by definition death could not be an ending, only a transition to some other state. And the criteria would be God's criteria, not that of humans, not even if the humans happened to write it Hebrew about 800 b.c., or in Koine around 300 a.d., or Arabic around 600 a.d. and were completely convinced that these ramblings illustrated God's criteria. Chances are they'd get a few things right, just as if you were to take a rifle inside a barn and start shooting, you'd probably hit the broadside of it from time to time.

<font color=blue>&gt;&gt;Assuming that there is this god, it has created us, we have a purpose, and we have a chance at some reward after we die, how do we really know what the desired behaviour is?</font color=blue>

It would have to be completely obvious, wouldn't it? Not only completely obvious, but apparent to everyone, no matter where in the world they happened to live, or what their belief system was, or what their education level happened to be. Right? If there was indeed this God, then God's system should generally apply to everyone equally, even if they had not heard of the teachings of the Buddha or the Christ or the Prophet, and even if they lived and died before any of those three happened to walk the earth. Anything else would not make much sense, would it?

<font color=blue>&gt;&gt;There seems to be a lot of chaos in the universe...maybe anarchy is the way?</font color=blue>

So what kind of a God would make sense. Tossing away all the different belief systems which humans wave like flags, and all contradictory actions taken by humans (which may or may not be right), what makes sense? If there is a God (and I'm not saying there is), should this God be logical and consistent, or chaotic and inconsistent? I'm not saying you should extrapolate human actions and delineating God that way, but transending that to something that makes sense.

Yes, it's possible that this God could be chaotic, but that wouldn't make much sense to me. That would mean that what is "right" this week, could arbitrarily be "wrong" next week, and at some random point beyond that, be "right" again.



<font color=blue>There seems to be a natural order where 20% have and dominate 80%...maybe those who oppress others and get to the top have it right?</font color=blue>

Perhaps. But to my way of thinking that a system that is "right" for only 20% of the people would not be a terribly consistent criteria. That's thinking like Christian or a Muslim, and not like a member of the human race.

<font color=blue>There are lots of ways we could go are there not? </font color=blue>

That is, in my opinion, probably one of the most profound things said on this forum. As the old saying goes, "all roads lead to Rome," and I don't mean that in any religious sense with any Vatican overtones. In the metaphorical sense, whether you start your journey from Moscow, Portugal, or London and take the Chunnel, you can eventually drive all the way to Rome. Taking the road through the south of France might be the correct path for those living in Portugal or Spain, but may not be the correct path for someone starting out from Greece or the Czech Republic.

It's not about what road you take. It's about how you behave along the journey.

<font color=blue>&gt;&gt; . . . how do we really know what the desired behaviour is?</font color=blue>

And that is the key question, isn't it? If this God is supposed to be so wise and fair, what kind of answer makes the most sense? I think the answer can be determined by finding commonalities, not differences. What commonality does a Hindu have with a Baptist with a Shinto priest with an Aborigine in Australia with a Bushman on the Kalahari? Find that commonality, and I think you'll find what a God, if there really was a God, would want of us all. I also think you'll find that a lot of people even screw that up.

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>

Please quote to me the christian doctrine that says we have to take care of animals and the planet.

<hr></blockquote>

Catechism
<blockquote><hr>

Respect for the integrity of creation
2415 The seventh commandment enjoins respect for the integrity of creation. Animals, like plants and inanimate beings, are by nature destined for the common good of past, present, and future humanity.[194] Use of the mineral, vegetable, and animal resources of the universe cannot be divorced from respect for moral imperatives. Man's dominion over inanimate and other living beings granted by the Creator is not absolute; it is limited by concern for the quality of life of his neighbor, including generations to come; it requires a religious respect for the integrity of creation.[195]

2416 Animals are God's creatures. He surrounds them with his providential care. By their mere existence they bless him and give him glory.[196] Thus men owe them kindness. We should recall the gentleness with which saints like St. Francis of Assisi or St. Philip Neri treated animals.

2417 God entrusted animals to the stewardship of those whom he created in his own image.[197] Hence it is legitimate to use animals for food and clothing. They may be domesticated to help man in his work and leisure. Medical and scientific experimentation on animals is a morally acceptable practice, if it remains within reasonable limits and contributes to caring for or saving human lives.

2418 It is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly. It is likewise unworthy to spend money on them that should as a priority go to the relief of human misery. One can love animals; one should not direct to them the affection due only to persons.
.......
2456 The dominion granted by the Creator over the mineral, vegetable, and animal resources of the universe cannot be separated from respect for moral obligations, including those toward generations to come.

<hr></blockquote>

Granted it is not a PETA mission statement by any means.
<blockquote><hr>

So you equate christianity now? Most christian beliefs contradict eachother horribly on this part, ranging from that the only thing we're accountable for is loving jesus (everything else doesn't matter), to obediance to a worldly leader

<hr></blockquote>
I am not sure I see your wide spectrum. Their are some contradicting of some beliefs, but as a whole their is very little that I can see of the Core Value. 90% of Christians believe in the Apostles Creed as a core value, all the other stuff is fluff.

<blockquote><hr>

According to christians, God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresence (all powerful, all knowing and he's everywhere), which means, not only does he know ALL injustice that happens, he's also PRESENT when any injustice happens and he also has the POWER to STOP any injustice.

<hr></blockquote>
As I said above Injustice, just like suffering is very subjective. To me someoen suffering maybe that they have not eaten in a few days, to them suffering may be not being able to breath in a urban smog cloud.
<blockquote><hr>

So, which are Gods communications and which aren't?

<hr></blockquote>
This is the core of the differant denominations. We all have some truth, but none have the Absolute truth. To some it is relying on a Church Commitee like the Magestriam of Bishops and the Pope for Catholics, others it is their own interpretations. Then you have others who read the Bible as in a Whole intact state, and follow it word for word by the letter. To me the only word I need to follow is the of Ten commandments plus the 2 Jesus gave and follow the Gospels. All the other stuff is just gravy.

<blockquote><hr>

Its pretty simple, if free will is what is desired, then he can just clearly state what is his plan (and since he's omnipotent and omniscient, he would be able to state it in a way that everyone could clearly understand it, why would he create humans that doesn't understand his plan?) and then let us choose for ourselves.

And again, please state to us Gods plan and please tell us why what YOU see as Gods plan is anymore real or valid than the other guys idea of what is Gods plan.

<hr></blockquote>
Valid point. 2 answers come to mind.

a) That would be horribly boring to have everyone think and act the same. I honestly think God created us due to boredom.
b) His plan is there, it is just not in the top level. You need to dig deep and find it, it is a constant search for the Absolute truth.

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>

Tell that to someone dying an agonizing death from a disease, or that innocent kid who lost his arms and legs in Iraq, or the 3 million people who have recently died in that country in Africa, or the over 100k ppl who were hacked to death with machete`s in Rwanda (my mom was there 2 days after that happened and showed me pictures...it was horrible), or the millions who have starved to death in the Ethiopia famines (again...I saw pictures of piles of thousands of bodies...awful), or the millions of children who are physically and sexually abused in our society. I could do this for lines and lines and lines.

Were I to allow even a hair of this stuff to happen to my kids I would be rightfully thrown in jail and be looked upon very harshly by society. If this suffering is part of your god's plan, then it is cruel. If it is not but it has the power to intervene, then it is negligent. The human suffering that went on under Hitler's watch is minimal compared to what theists believe their deity has overseen. If your god does not see this as suffering, then it is ignorant.

<hr></blockquote>
I never said there was not Suffering in the world. There is allot in my eyes. But I am not sure how God would see it for anything other then Natural Order which saddly is what it is in reality.

 

[imported_snoopy]

<blockquote><hr>

I don't recall making the claim it would be "our" definition of what a good world would be.

<hr></blockquote>

You did not...what you said was

<blockquote><hr>

If there is a God, then there is some spiritual purpose to our existence, whatever it may be. It seems logical that making this world a better place is the best way one would earn their reward from whatever God or system they happen to believe in.

<hr></blockquote>

Part of my point is that we only have our version of what is a good world is to go on, and there are many conflicting views of what that would be.

<blockquote><hr>

If there was a God, almost by definition death could not be an ending, only a transition to some other state.

<hr></blockquote>
This is not logically sound either. First...what is the definition of a god? There have been many gods through history, and at best I think we can say that a god is an entity or being that is more advanced than we are. To go further is to delve into various religions, but even there, the definition of a god does not entail eternity for us.

<blockquote><hr>

Anything else would not make much sense, would it?

<hr></blockquote>
Again, it depends on how you define the god. In a pantheistic system there often competing gods with different systems...you are speaking from the Zoroastrian (one god) view.
<blockquote><hr>

Yes, it's possible that this God could be chaotic, but that wouldn't make much sense to me. That would mean that what is "right" this week, could arbitrarily be "wrong" next week, and at some random point beyond that, be "right" again.


<hr></blockquote>
And here we get into our version of what a good world is, or what a god should be.
<blockquote><hr>

Perhaps. But to my way of thinking that a system that is "right" for only 20% of the people would not be a terribly consistent criteria. That's thinking like Christian or a Muslim, and not like a member of the human race.

<hr></blockquote>
You are assuming one god with the same values as you. In nature, there is often a hierarchy among pack species, and that hierarchy generally benefits the species. Can you be sure that the ruling class in humanity is not an example of the same?
<blockquote><hr>

What commonality does a Hindu have with a Baptist with a Shinto priest with an Aborigine in Australia with a Bushman on the Kalahari?

<hr></blockquote>
What if that comonality turns out to be an irrational belief in a/some non-existant diety/ies?

 

[Shai'tan]

heh, actually snoop, Zoroastrianism refers to two gods.
It was the first hitorically recorded religion to be seperated into a "good" and "evil" side.
This is where christianity got its god/devil idea.
If a christian assumes that the devil exists, then they're polytheistic.(IMO)
Unless of course, they wish to admit that god is the devil, and vice versa.

And in reply to the remarks on free will between LC and Jemosh;
I cannot possibly see how such a thing as free will can exist.
Everything in the universe is of a knows mass/energy/velocity and it WILL react with other knows mass/energy/velocity things in a partiular matter.
Everything was, is, and is going to happen because of the placement/velocity/energy/forces of all matter/antimatter in the universe before it.
Assuming god exists.
And assuming god knows everything to the infinitepast and future.
And also assuming that he created everything.
Then he created all the "evil" in the world, he "wants" people to be corrupt.
When I figure out how a creature can exist outside of the known universe who is also more complex then it.
When I come to a great realization of life, and why a God would say evil is wrong, but so enjoyably cast "evil" into the world.
I just might consider that he could possibly exist.
Till then, I have too much other stuff for my simple mind to go through
From what I have learned, there is no good or bad.
Whether the experiences we gain in life are good or bad, they are still experiences and are the only proof that we are alive. Thats good enough for me. /php-bin/shared/images/icons/smile.gif

 

[Guest]

<font color=blue>&gt;&gt;Part of my point is that we only have our version of what is a good world is to go on, and there are many conflicting views of what that would be.</font color=blue>

And I agree with you.

<font color=blue>&gt;&gt;This is not logically sound either.</font color=blue>

I disagree. While you are correct in suggesting its not logical given some of the belief systems the world has seen (for example, death may not be a transition to another state if it was decided beforehand by the tapestry woven by the Norns, or perhaps we are merely chuncks of animated clay placed here as playthings for the Greco-Roman pantheon). Yes, while that's a possibility, it's one I don't have to concern myself with. That frees me from any worry about my actions or any consquences, other than the earthly consequences. If there is no "afterlife," I certainly won't give a about building up any brownie points or demerits.

Why I disagree, I'll answer next.

<font color=blue>&gt;&gt;First...what is the definition of a god?</font color=blue>

That's yet another key question, isn't it?

<font color=blue>&gt;&gt; There have been many gods through history, and at best I think we can say that a god is an entity or being that is more advanced than we are. To go further is to delve into various religions, but even there, the definition of a god does not entail eternity for us. </font color=blue>

I partially agree with the first sentence, and partially disagree with the second sentence. Your first sentence is to me reminiscent of Clarke's Law: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." Yes, if there were highly advanced beings somewhere, they could appear to us as gods. Like Q in STNG. Or like Von Daeniken's gods in Chariots. But again, gods like that free me from any worry of my actions. So what if the Arctureans are incredibly advanced? How does that affect me? So what if they laid out the pyramids as Von Daeniken claimed? Where are they now?

Although I agree with your assessment that I've bolded above, I disagree that we can not go further. Indeed, I posit that we HAVE to go further. What's the difference between a highly advanced being and a god? A god has a relationship or interest in human beings. A "god" isn't so much a being, as an office or a function. In other words, that hypothetical Arcturean has to not only have an interest in ME, but the relationship has to be more than a temporary association ending at death. Anything less, and I'm not interested, because I'm not accountable.

Are you seeing the fine gradation in what I'm saying? Maybe this advanced being created the earth. What do I care? Maybe this advanced being created me. What do I care? Since it's obvious the only consequences for behavior that WE CAN OBSERVE is the feedback we get . . . not from this advanced being . . . but from other humans, smarter or dumber than we, what do I care? Hitler and Saddam weren't slapped down by this advanced being, but by other humans. So, am I concerned about this ineffectual advanced being or beings? Nope. Only if, and this is a big "if," there's something more than this finger-snap of a life, do I care if there is a god.

So, with that in mind, I will give you MY definition of a God: "An advanced entity (or entities--'god' is an office) with a long-term (beyond death) relationship with ME." Anything else, to me, is simply NOT a "god." I'm not saying there is such a being. I'm only saying that IF there is, certain criteria must be met for me to be concerned about it.

<font color=blue>&gt;&gt;And here we get into our version of what a good world is, or what a god should be.</font color=blue>

Well, I answered what I think a God should be. I think from that assumption, it's fairly easy to derive what a good world should be. You know, "if A, then B."

<font color=blue>&gt;&gt;You are assuming one god with the same values as you. In nature, there is often a hierarchy among pack species, and that hierarchy generally benefits the species. Can you be sure that the ruling class in humanity is not an example of the same?</font color=blue>

Believe it or not, I'm going to agree with you. I'm not assuming "one god," however. In my thoughts, as I've carried out "if A, then B," it seems to make sense that there should be at least two, and possibly more. A heirarchy neither adds nor detracts, in my opinion.

<font color=blue>&gt;&gt;What if that comonality turns out to be an irrational belief in a/some non-existant diety/ies?</font color=blue>

Good catch. My error. Although I said: What commonality does a Hindu have with a Baptist with a Shinto priest with an Aborigine in Australia with a Bushman on the Kalahari?, I had meant to include atheists and agnostics in with that group. A valid commonality, in my opinion, must include non-believers as well as believers, otherwise, it isn't so common.

Of course, this brings up an interesting paradox, don't you think? If A, then B. If there is a God, then atheism is part of the plan. In other words, belief and non-belief are options, not essential.

 

[Roscoe]

You absolutely without a doubt cannot have it both ways - which do you want - the freedom to choose to do right or being forced to do right? I personally find a God who is going to be willing to let us make our own decisions and to learn from them a more desirable God than one who removes our free will.

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>

Then he created all the "evil" in the world, he "wants" people to be corrupt.

<hr></blockquote>
First you need to define Evil.

It is seen as a few things. Evil can be suffering, desease, war, death, murder, etc, etc. Some of this is Natural Law, it is part of our being Human, and it is also part of the choatic world that we were born from and will die to in the physical sense.

Evil can be also be seen as a Sin. Sin is a natural byproduct of free-will and our taken knowledge of what it right and what is wrong. Judeo/Christian/Islam believe this is from the Fruit fo the tree of Wisdom.

Then you have Evil as in Demons and Satan. This is produced by the Fallen-Angels who can not be forgiven ever for their sins. This comes in the human form of Hatred and Temptation.

God does not want us to be corrupt, he gives us a Choice to be or not to be.

 

[Roscoe]

Answer this: does cold exist? Does darkness exist?

 

[imported_snoopy]

Tell that to someone who is persecuted, or starving because of a crop failure, or trapped in a burning building. At least you get to choose though...right? I personally find a god that would allow this to be vile. Would you stand by and watch an adult molest a child because that adult is exercising his/her free will? If not, why not?

 

[imported_snoopy]

<blockquote><hr>

does cold exist? Does darkness exist?

<hr></blockquote>
no...those are merely our perceptions of a physical state and those perceptions can vary depending on our frame of reference.

 

[imported_snoopy]

<blockquote><hr>

You absolutely without a doubt cannot have it both ways

<hr></blockquote>
As an aside, I would suggest that many (most?) christians do want it both ways. They really like the free will defense as a response to suffering and evil (though there is much suffering that is not a result of evil) yet regularly pray for devine intervention in their day to day affairs...be it inner strength, help for a sick friend, protection for someone in peril, etc. etc. On top of this are the many instances of devine intervention (and commital of numerous atrocites) in the old testament, and the fact that the new testament is completely the result of god meddling in the affairs (and wombs) of man.

 

[imported_snoopy]

<blockquote><hr>

heh, actually snoop, Zoroastrianism refers to two gods.
It was the first hitorically recorded religion to be seperated into a "good" and "evil" side.

<hr></blockquote>
You are right.

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>

the freedom to choose to do right or being forced to do right?

<hr></blockquote>

There are more ways than that. We can simply be shown the plan, that doesn't force us anywhere and still gives us the freedom of coice...right now its just random who gets it right, if anyone does´.

 

[Roscoe]

Free will does not preclude a God who will and does intervene. You merely have to ask. The issue is not God's willingness to participate but our willingness to include him. And there are times when God does do things to supercedes our will because he most definitely has his own agenda. But his own agenda also includes our ability to make decisions for ourselves.

As for my darkness and cold questions: neither dark nor cold exist - they are terms we use to describe the absence of heat and light. Evil is the same - it does not exist it is the presence of free willed individuals excluding God... or to say it another way - it is the absence of God.