61

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Christians are confused, not in love with god.

« on: June 11, 2010, 07:59:55 PM »

So, you're like the people in biblical times in a way, that you don't view homosexuality as a sin, but homosexual actions. Am I right?

You are correct, so long as we are clear that by "homosexuality" you are referring to a biological inclination towards sex with people of the same sex.

Do you view wearing two different types of cloth at the same time a sin?

Absolutely not.

So, you're like the people in biblical times in a way, that you don't view homosexuality as a sin, but homosexual actions. Am I right?

You are correct, so long as we are clear that by "homosexuality" you are referring to a biological inclination towards sex with people of the same sex.

Do you view wearing two different types of cloth at the same time a sin?

You don't understand how "pick and choose" works, do you?

You aren't the first one to mention this; please lurk more.

I find this neither cute nor original.

62

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Ask a Christian anything.

« on: June 11, 2010, 08:40:06 AM »

A being of infinite knowledge, even if it is of just the present, would already know where Adam and Eve were hiding, would already know who told them they were naked, would already know that they ate from the tree, and why, and would have no need to ask.  So why would he?

It is the same thing as a mom asking her kid what happened to the cookies in the cookie jar when his face is covered in crumbs and chocolate chips.

63

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Ask a Christian anything.

« on: June 11, 2010, 08:36:33 AM »

But if God is sovereign, then his rules are not arbitrary

How do you figure? Even if he rules absolutely and can bend the universe at will, rules like 'don't wear two types of cloth together' are still bizarre and arbitrary.

If you remove God's sovereignty, sure.

The problem of Evil was one that Christians could never answer.

Christians say:
1- God Exists.
2- God knows everything: Everything that was, is and what will be.
3- God can do everything: There are no limits to his power.
4- God is all loving: he loves all of his creations and wishes no harm upon them.

The facts
1- There is and was crime in the world.

The implications are:

1- God knew who was going to commit crimes before they even existed.
2- God could have prevented them, but did not try.

With all of these premises, we must arrive to at least one of these conclusions:

1- God is not Omnipotent: He could not prevent crime.
2- God is not Omniscient: He did not know of all the crimes.
3- God is not Omnibenevolent: He would send his creations to hell for a crime, rather than preventing the crime.
4- God is not Real: Crimes happen naturally.

My question
Which one of these options do you choose? You can't logically deny them all.

You are making the mistake of applying your own morality to God, this is the flaw with your third conclusion. When you come to understand that God is not human and bound by human perceptions of what is right and wrong, you will understand that he can be omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, and still allow for bad things to happen in the world. Just as a clay vessel doesn't have the moral authority to complain about how the potter created it, we don't have the moral authority to say that God's plan for the universe is flawed. Even still, the comparison between a pot and a potter doesn't even come close to the disparity between man and God.

I think that you are correct on all your points, but why would this mean that God is not just? Has he not given us a way out of the situation you described?

A way out? That would imply the existence of free will, which you yourself have admitted we do not have. In your narrative, we are nothing but puppets, our entire lives pre-ordained before we are even born.

But we have the illusion of free will, which as far as you and I are concerned is sufficient. Though God knew everything I would ever do and thus preordained that it would happen by simply setting the universe into motion, it does not in any way excuse me from the sins I commit, since I myself do not know everything that the future holds. Likewise, you must assume that you are one of the elect. Rejecting God on the grounds that "God already knew I wouldn't accept him" doesn't justify your decision.

I don't buy that. In the Christian view, sin is a choice: a choice to act selfishly or against God. If you have no true free will, you cannot make a choice. How can you go against God's plan if -by the pre-ordination of every second of your existence- every thought, action and breath you take is God's plan?

Also, what I assume is meaningless if my entire life is preordained. Either I will do the "right" things and go to Heaven, or I will do the "wrong" things and go to Hell, these paths were set in stone aeons before I existed. In the absence of free will, nothing I think or assume matters (if thought can truly be called thought without a mind capable of decisions).

I didn't think you bought any of this. We cannot possibly go against God's plan, but simply because my actions are the sum total of all my experiences, my biology, and my impulses and God in his infinite wisdom knows precisely what choice I will make, how does that justify my decision to commit a sin, such as murdering somebody?

Your life does have purpose for one reason, that God of the universe that preordained your existence said it does, even if your purpose goes no further than commiting your life to serving him.

64

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Christians are confused, not in love with god.

« on: June 11, 2010, 08:23:15 AM »

So, you're like the people in biblical times in a way, that you don't view homosexuality as a sin, but homosexual actions. Am I right?

You are correct, so long as we are clear that by "homosexuality" you are referring to a biological inclination towards sex with people of the same sex.

65

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Ask a Christian anything.

« on: June 10, 2010, 06:17:34 PM »

Those who supported Stalin believed he was more than human, and that he was infallible, while the dissenters saw him for what he was, a petty megalomaniac, abusing his power so that we could be worshiped. Much like Yahweh in many ways.

You seem to be under the impression that God is a human.

That is like saying that a giraffe deserves to be treated like a mosquito because there was once a mosquito that claimed to be sixteen feet tall.

God is immoral in terms of human morality, that is what we have worked towards for the last 100,000 years. I don't care if god is a quadrillion times bigger and more powerful than us, that doesn't change the fact that the god of the Bible is immoral. If he wants to send me to Hell for that then so be it, I would rather stand by the morality our species has suffered and fought for than a seemingly arbitrary set of rules from a celestial despot.

But if God is sovereign, then his rules are not arbitrary. There is no objective distinction when you are dealing with the omnipotent.

And pardon me if I question your sincerity when you present a scenario where you claim to accept Yahweh's existence, but consider yourself just too good to humble yourself before his countenance. I am not impressed by those who present such a poor grasp of perspective under the guise of a self-righteousness sense of superiority

66

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Universal Healthcare in Canada being reconsidered

« on: June 10, 2010, 06:03:34 PM »

We used cucumbers in our sex-ed class.

67

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: "Where God(s) Came From"

« on: June 10, 2010, 06:02:16 PM »

This is a really good thread. As a Christian I will be first to say that I am ashamed of much of the Church's history.

68

The Lounge / Re: Can you please explain to me, what troll means!

« on: June 10, 2010, 04:46:37 PM »

Nothing here is debatable.

I disagree...

No, he's right.

69

Flat Earth General / Re: Who started this Conspiracy Theory?

« on: June 10, 2010, 04:28:25 PM »

Interesting question, I would suppose the conspirators were the originators.

The conspirators started the conspiracy theory?

70

Flat Earth General / Re: Private Company launches spacecraft into orbit

« on: June 10, 2010, 04:26:20 PM »

I imagine it would also smell round, taste round, feel round, and sound round from space, yet still be flat? Zeteticism at its best: "I must ignore what my senses are telling me!"

At the edge of space one is looking down at the circular area of light of the sun. This is why there is some slight curvature in amateur balloon pictures.

lol

71

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Ask a Christian anything.

« on: June 10, 2010, 04:23:54 PM »

I think that you are correct on all your points, but why would this mean that God is not just? Has he not given us a way out of the situation you described?

A way out? That would imply the existence of free will, which you yourself have admitted we do not have. In your narrative, we are nothing but puppets, our entire lives pre-ordained before we are even born.

But we have the illusion of free will, which as far as you and I are concerned is sufficient. Though God knew everything I would ever do and thus preordained that it would happen by simply setting the universe into motion, it does not in any way excuse me from the sins I commit, since I myself do not know everything that the future holds. Likewise, you must assume that you are one of the elect. Rejecting God on the grounds that "God already knew I wouldn't accept him" doesn't justify your decision.

Is it really possible to claim God-said-so as not justifying a decision, when God decided that you'd say 'God-said so?

Of course. Why wouldn't it be?

72

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Ask a Christian anything.

« on: June 10, 2010, 03:49:06 PM »

Those who supported Stalin believed he was more than human, and that he was infallible, while the dissenters saw him for what he was, a petty megalomaniac, abusing his power so that we could be worshiped. Much like Yahweh in many ways.

You seem to be under the impression that God is a human.

That is like saying that a giraffe deserves to be treated like a mosquito because there was once a mosquito that claimed to be sixteen feet tall.

73

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Ask a Christian anything.

« on: June 10, 2010, 03:43:12 PM »

I think that you are correct on all your points, but why would this mean that God is not just? Has he not given us a way out of the situation you described?

A way out? That would imply the existence of free will, which you yourself have admitted we do not have. In your narrative, we are nothing but puppets, our entire lives pre-ordained before we are even born.

But we have the illusion of free will, which as far as you and I are concerned is sufficient. Though God knew everything I would ever do and thus preordained that it would happen by simply setting the universe into motion, it does not in any way excuse me from the sins I commit, since I myself do not know everything that the future holds. Likewise, you must assume that you are one of the elect. Rejecting God on the grounds that "God already knew I wouldn't accept him" doesn't justify your decision.

74

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: The Five Proofs of God

« on: June 10, 2010, 03:34:42 PM »

How does perceiving God have any influence on whether or not he actually exists?

I have no reason to believe in something that has had absolutely no detectable influence in my life or in the lives of any person I have ever met. This is just another way to say "You can't prove he doesn't exist". I don't need or want to prove that he doesn't exist. I just don't have any reason to believe that he does. Your reasons for believing are little more than "Someone told me about god", "The Bible said so" and "I feel his existence".

My response was intended to address the bold part; I have never used the "prove a negative" argument to support my belief in God. My belief in a supreme power is based on inner conviction.

75

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Ask a Christian anything.

« on: June 10, 2010, 10:24:36 AM »

I think that you are correct on all your points, but why would this mean that God is not just? Has he not given us a way out of the situation you described?

76

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: The Five Proofs of God

« on: June 10, 2010, 10:18:07 AM »

I have a very simple argument against a god, or any gods:
Where is he?

I've seen theists say "Look out your window to see the self-evident existence of God". But what do I see? I see:
-Clouds
-Trees
-Buildings
-The ocean
-And so many other things

No, I don't see any Gods or supernatural forces. Our world seems to be working so perfectly without God, that it's a wonder anyone can still believe in it. Show me your god and I will believe. That's the only proof I need. Stop going to the very limits of our knowledge. What use is a God that can only be found in what we don't know?

God is only there if you need to see Him.

Nah, I don't believe that either. Sounds like a cop out.

How does perceiving God have any influence on whether or not he actually exists?

77

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Christians are confused, not in love with god.

« on: June 10, 2010, 10:14:21 AM »

So, Canadark, as a Christian, do you accept homosexuality as a natural part of life?

I accept that some people are more physiologically inclined towards sex with people of the same gender than others. I consider this inclination to be a natural part of life just as I am sexually attracted towards women with whom I am not married.

78

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Christians are confused, not in love with god.

« on: June 09, 2010, 07:37:20 PM »

I've know many a christian that have had deep depressions during their lives, and felt the only person that got them was God. I've know like... A LOT of people that have been like this. I have never met a christian that didn't originally turn to God because of emotional turmoil.

Christians are confused, not believers in God.

My own experience stands in contrast to this, regardless I don't believe that turning to God as the result of emotional turmoil necessarily diminishes the significance or sincerity of the action.

But then again I don't believe that gays are any more confused than the rest of us.

79

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Ask a Christian anything.

« on: June 09, 2010, 07:32:35 PM »

Morally, yes. If the alternative is giving praise and thanks to the one who created the lake of fire and keeps it fed with countless victims.

He may have created it but he didn't "[keep] it fed" with victims. Have you not been paying attention since the start of the thread?

By simply setting the universe into motion and knowing what would happen within it, God preordained that some people would be followers and some would not

Sounds to me like he was perfectly willing to see some people go there and keep the fire fed.

Do you think it was more moral for the intellectuals and religious leaders to reject communism and the cruelties of the Stalinist regime and go to the gulags or do you respect more those who publically denounced their beliefs and morality and supported Stalin?

I choose choice A but this is irrelevant to Christianity and my "hypothetical" situation.

No it isn't at all, like the dissidents who rejected the myth of a benign Soviet Union, I deny the myth of a benign god.

You would disagree with me in the same way there were many in the USSR who would have fought and died to uphold the principles of communism.

Do you not see the connection?

The Stalin comparison is perfect except to the point that we as Christians take God's sovereignty and righteousness as a matter of fact, whereas Stalin was only a human and was constrained by human frailty, mortality, and impulses.

You need to get yourself into the mindset where you can except that we do not consider God to exist along human terms. I'm not asking you to agree with this, only know where we are coming from. Until people can except that those with whom they disagree have a different worldview, there will be no respect, only frustration.

80

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: About humans and immortality...

« on: June 09, 2010, 07:25:48 PM »

We exist as long as the universe does, after all when 'we' die we are simply reborn as the insects and vegetation and microorganisms who eat us.

The human consciousness, however, is most certainly not immortal.

You would have to convince me first that God is not real.

81

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Misinterpreted - Jesus a Soldier

« on: June 09, 2010, 07:21:39 PM »

Luke 22:36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.
 

Like so many people on this forum, the pieces of scripture you refer to are either taken out of context or invented in your own mind.

i'm pretty curious, how is it possible to misinterpret this?
Plus this wasn't one of the two quotes earlier.

Read the rest of the chapter, and when you are done read Matthew 26. You are can't see the forest for the trees.

82

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Why The Pictures Of Jesus Are Idiotic

« on: June 09, 2010, 07:17:53 PM »

I believe historically different churches throughout the world have tried to depict Jesus as looking like themselves.

I think it is kind of neat.

83

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: The Bible..

« on: June 07, 2010, 06:35:15 PM »

The Bible is just a collection of cool stories designed to stop people raping and killing each other by pretending that there's someone that you can't see who's gonna kick your ass if you're bad.

Discuss.

The bible is more than cool stories, for there are other books that are secular (non-religious) that are:

#1)  From historians of the 1st - 4th centuries A.D. - I will only give 2 examples here - "The Jewish War" and "Jewish Antiquities", which back up the account of the bible's historical accuracy.

#2)  From the B.C. years - hundreds of years before Christ - Herodotus 484 to 425 B.C. writes about the origins of Greco-Persian wars, and the dynastic history of the four Persian Kings, i.e. Cyrus, Cambyses, Darius, and Xerxes.  (2 of which are also in the OT of the bible - Cyrus and Darius)

#3)  Books in libraries or info on the internet about the fall of empires, which the bible had already predicted much earlier in the OT as it pertains to the demise of Babylon, Nineveh (in Assyria), and Tyre, which all came true, as history books show.

AND
#4)  Hundreds of artifacts unearthed from archeological digs that also proof the historical accuracy of the Bible.


It is just my knowledge, but you don't have to accept it on my word - look it up.

Haha... ok?

(EDIT: I don't disagree with this, I just think this is a neat post)

84

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Israel vs. Turkish Sea vessel

« on: June 07, 2010, 06:34:22 PM »

So how about that Helen Thomas?

She is quite the old braud.

85

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: School helps 15 year old girl get abortion without parents knowledge in Seattle

« on: June 07, 2010, 06:32:45 PM »

I base my reasoning on the fact that Paul was an utter twat that completely ruined Christianity

How is this possible if Christianity teaches that Paul was an apostle of Jesus Christ and his teachings were the result of divine inspiration? The premise of your statement doesn't make sense within the Christian paradigm.

A group of people decided that Christianity teaches that Paul was an apostle of Jesus Christ. That doesn't necessarily mean he was. The sad thing is that most Christians rely more on the teachings of Paul to guide them than the teachings of Jesus.

Stop being obtuse.

Paul's teachings compliment those of Jesus, and I will assume that when you say "a group of people" you are referring to the entire Church, as each and every one of Jesus' 12 disciples acknowledged Paul as a fellow Apostle. If it ever appears as though I refer more to what Paul said than what Jesus said, it is only because the epistles contain far more information.

Although really I am just telling you what you already know, since by your own admission you have read the Bible (except for the boring parts).

86

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Misinterpreted - Jesus a Soldier

« on: June 07, 2010, 06:24:16 PM »

Luke 22:36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.
 

Like so many people on this forum, the pieces of scripture you refer to are either taken out of context or invented in your own mind.

87

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Ask a Christian anything.

« on: June 07, 2010, 06:19:51 PM »

Why would you worship such a god when he is singly responsible for all of the pain in the world and hate Satan, whose only input was making us sentient and then killing the first born of Egypt (even then only because God made him do it)?

Because though God not fit into the mold that the world has created for him, he is still God.

So? Satan clearly has equal power or thereabouts and is clearly the more preferable to worship, being less of a murderous lunatic. Gods don't need to be worshipped simply by virtue of having power, they either have to inspire either love or terror among their followers. Since this Jehovah fellow is neither nicer nor much more powerful than Satan, I suggest we all go have a big Crowleyist orgy of sex, drugs and violence/rock 'n roll.

Based on what pieces of scripture did you come to the conclusion that Satan is equal with God in both power and morality?

All Satan actually does in scripture is kill a few people on Yahweh's command and give Eve the forbidden fruit, while Yahweh destroys entire cities for using the wrong orifice, then turns someone he specially selected to survive into salt for turning and looking at the awesome massive explosion and rain of fire.

As for power, if God and Satan are opposing forces and neither are giving, the only logical outcome is either that they are equally powerful or Yahweh isn't giving it his all, which would be an immoral act in and of itself if you believe Satan to be evil.

The problem here is that once again, you are attempting to apply your perception of what is right and wrong over God's actions. God is giving his all, the fact that there is still evil in the world only tells us that his plan has some ultimate purpose for it. As Lewis said, we should not make the mistake in believing that Satan is the opposite of God. He is wholly evil, but he is neither omnipotent nor omniscient. It is more accurate to say that Satan is the opposite of the Archangel Gabriel.

Plus you are referring to things that as far as I know, have never even been referred to in scripture (kill a few people on Yahweh's command?)

EDIT: shoot I just lost about a half hour's work of typing. I'll reply to the other queries later.

My perception of right and wrong overlaps a lot with OT morality and almost entirely with NT morality. If you're calling me immoral (basically, you are) then Yahweh has been teaching lies. Yahweh spent most of the old testament killing people, ordering Satan to (you probably know him as the Angel of Death who killed the first-born of Egypt) or ordering the Israelites to do so.

Either Yahweh breaks his own laws or they don't apply to him, and I refuse to follow any laws created by a hypocrite or a sociopath, they're unlikely to do any good. The fact that there is suffering and the assumption that he is omnipotent can only mean that he is malevolent, this argument's been floating around since Epicurus and nobody's answered it beyond vague dodges.

If Satan is the opposite of Gabriel, why hasn't Yahweh crushed him and why is his son referred to as the Antichrist?

You've yet to address my main point which is that Satan is the more morally upright of the two as far as I can tell from scripture. Why worship the immoral one?

I haven't addressed your point because I don't accept its premise. The Angel of Death is not the same thing as Satan, and it was the spirit of God that killed the firstborn of Egypt, not the devil, or any angel (fallen or otherwise) for that matter. Like so many people on this forum, the pieces of scripture you refer to are either taken out of context or invented in your own mind.

The answer that you and Epicurus seek only makes sense if you accept the notion of God's sovereignty and transcendence. God created the universe and predestined all the things that would come to pass in it. The fact that you think he did a sub par job is irrelevant. As God said to Job, "Can you pull in the leviathan with a fishhook or tie down his tongue with a rope?". To say that any man has a better grasp of what is right and wrong than God is a laughable notion, if we accept that he is sovereign, which is central to the Christian belief system.

In addition to say that God is somehow limited to the same laws that we are is absurd. Is it hypocritical for a government to limit the right to drive a car to people over a certain age? What right does a police officer have in arresting somebody who brings a gun into a high school? Surely God is more superior to man than any mere cop would be to a teenager.

88

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Ask a Christian anything.

« on: June 06, 2010, 07:15:47 PM »

According to your beliefs I am a creature created by God (in His image). If I question His actions it is only because He made me this way.  That is who I am to say what he should or shouldn't do.

This reminds me about an argument I heard about the paradox of divine foreknowledge and free will.  It goes like this:

P1:  God knows everything that we will do.  (doctrine of divine foreknowledge).
P2:  If God knows everything we will do, then it is not in our power to do otherwise. (If God knows the future, then the future is set in stone)
P3:  If it is not in our power to do otherwise, then there is no free will.
Conclusion:  There is no free will.

It is a matter of deductive reasoning that if the three premises are correct, then the conclution must be.  The only way to deny the conclusion is to deny one of the three premises.  To deny the first premise however, is basically to deny God, since omniscience is a defining characteristic of God.

Assuming this is true, if we have no free will, and all of our actions have already been pre ordained, then how is it just for God to punish us for eternity for actions which we had no control over?

The last question is to the Christians, also if you disagree with the argument above, I would address that as well.

Which is why I, like Luther, Calvin and Zwingli, do not believe that we have free will. We only have the illusion of free will. However, I do not believe that this in any way diminishes God's morality. This is why Paul asked in Romans "Hath not the potter power over the clay to make one vessel unto honour and another unto dishonour?". Indeed he does, and for me to say that he does not is to diminish the sovereignty of God over his creation.

Even if I accept the idea of God as (if you'll pardon the expression) gospel truth, why on Earth would I want to worship it?

If you accepted the idea of God that I have been supporting, you would not be able to help but want to worship him.

89

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Universal Healthcare in Canada being reconsidered

« on: June 06, 2010, 07:07:00 PM »

You are all being ridiculous. He made a dumb comment and you all jumped on it by saying he is lazy.

Get back on topic, this stuff is relevant to me,

90

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: School helps 15 year old girl get abortion without parents knowledge in Seattle

« on: June 06, 2010, 07:03:42 PM »

I base my reasoning on the fact that Paul was an utter twat that completely ruined Christianity

How is this possible if Christianity teaches that Paul was an apostle of Jesus Christ and his teachings were the result of divine inspiration? The premise of your statement doesn't make sense within the Christian paradigm.