Religious Spectrum

Marine0I · May 2004

Kida - first answer is no, you had no choice in being created. I fail to see the connection between that and whether or not God is loving - but I'm sure you'll enlighten me <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' />

Second answer is the same - no. We wonder how we came into being because every single experience we have in this world rams home a simple fact - everything comes from something else. Nothing just appears, nothing just exists, it all came from somewhere - its natural.

It also stands to reason that as we track backwards in nature, sooner or later we will reach a point where everything that existed in the fartherest time back came from something outside of nature: from something super - natural. The supernatural i.e. God. As humans, with our purely worldly experience, questions like "where did I come from" are reasonable and rational. When we have a God claiming he didnt come from anywhere, instead he has just "always been", it doesnt sound right to us. Thats just because we've never met anything before that exists eternal, its completely foreign to us.

Lucifer set himself up against God. I dont know where you derive your information about God from, but according to the Bible, setting yourself up against God is blasphemy - unforgivable. Why dont you think he is 100% evil?

Please, show me the passage that shows the Apostle Paul believed in predestination. Paul believed in an omniscent God, a God that knew everything and anything. And that included the fates of humans. However, there is a huge difference between knowing what someone will do, and predestining them to do it.

God is like a schoolteacher. He looks at the class, and he explains to them that the upcoming semester is going to be extremely hard. So hard in fact, that if they dont come to him for help, then they will certainly fail. This teacher knows these kids so well he can already pick which ones are going to fail and which ones are going to pass, but as he explains to these kids - when they fail, it wont be because he made them, it will be because they didnt come to him for help.

I see you have a lot of questions, and I suspect you dont really want an answer....
Most people would rather see God dead/not involved in their lives, for a lot of reasons. I personally would rather not believe in the God of the New Testament either, has he has a rather personal demand upon what I should do with my life, and how I should treat others. I'm not pointing the finger, I'm not a Christian either, just sitting on the fence really, but thats what I believe.....

I guess I think the same kinda applies to you too CMEast. People always have 200+ rational objections to Christianity, and one real reason shielded by the other 200 as to why its out of the question . To answer in part what you had to say - the Bible has been translated hundreds of times, and the only thing that has shocked people about it so far is the accuracy of rendition. As it has been around for centuries, there have been heaps of copies made, and comparisions of these copies have shown an incredible consistency.

I'm not going to go in depth to try and prove that, because as I said I dont feel that these are real, honest, faith preventing beliefs. If you would like me too I can. If you really wanted faith, but felt that it was prevented by things like the above, then you would have gone looking for answers long before you discovered this thread imho. As I said to kida, I dont think you want God to exist at all, you'd love for atheism to be correct, because no God = no accountability, no answering for your actions, no punishment, and no one telling you how to live your life.

Cyndane · May 2004

Ok.. since my last response wasn't the greatest, even though it still stands as fact. There are many things that have been predicted for the past five thousand years that have come to pass, that the bible just duplicates, which could mean anything. Although most notably WWII and WWI come to mind, I shall find the google links to where the Mayans, and Celtics predicted it long before it came to pass, and 1600 years is nothing compared to 2 or 3 thousand :-)

*edit* I seem to be editing alot lately. 1600 years is not correct if that Daniel quote is correct and is from 700 BC, According to the bible Jesus entered Jersulem around 33 AD.. that is only around 667 yrs... That is not accounting for the fact that the current calendar is off by 5 to 7 yrs. Unless you go by the Mayan or egyptian calenedar.

Anyhow.. back on topic, here is a general list of some of the known religions out there if you do care to look them up. Granted it is not all of the, but then again there are well over 300 documented religions either living or dead depending upon where you look at. I would simply suggest an encyclopedia to assist you if you wish to find the ones that are more or less vanished. Any quick google search will easily give you over 10,000 pages of pretty much all of them. If you want an objective view I would simply try an encylopedia information, because as with most things people who believe in them tend to be a bit on the biased side. Or you can also request study materials from some major universities to assist with learning more. They tend not to be so biased.. there are always exceptions though. :-)

Christianity
Catholicism
Orthodoxy
Protestantism
Baptist
Episcopal
Lutheran
Methodist
Pentecostal
Buddhism
Zen
Pure Land
Theravada
Tibetan
Confucianism
Hinduism
Shaivism
Vaishnavism
Shakta
Philosophy
Islam
Jainism
Judaism
Orthodox
Liberal/Reform
Shinto
Sikhism
Taoism
Zoroastrianism

Revised New Age: (Not sure exactly what is the difference, but these have just emerged in the past 10/20 years, with the exception of Paganism.. it has just currently become "popular" for the teenage who want to be a "witch, ROFFLE" etc as Athena said.)
Christian-Derived NRMs
Eastern-Derived NRMs
Paganism and New Age
Bahai
Scientology
Rastafarianism

Bogglesteinsky · May 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CMEast @ May 12 2004, 10:49 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> What happens if no religion is right? I've searched for something to believe in but can't find anything except athiesm, its the only one that makes sense to me.

</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
If no religion is right, then we just stop existing. I hate to bring up pascal's wager, but the religoius people didnt miss anything. Nothing bad came out of believing in the "wrong" religion. If no religion is right, there is no damage done in believing in one of them.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Those quotes were really interesting btw, glad you showed them too me. However I cannot take the bible literally at all. How many times has it been translated? </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

All mordern english versions go to the original greek/hebrew. The answer to your question is "once".

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Changed by various versions of christianity and different ages to emphasise certain points.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Thats what the Jehova's witnesses did. Chirsitanity is not the same as the JW's, so I am pretty sure the answer to your quesiton is "never".

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I don't know if you have ever played Chinese Whispers but it only takes a few people to completely change a sentence. The Bible has been passed down for thousands of years, has been written by loads of different people, translated and changed etc. For every devout christian who had the opportunity to change it how many idiots hands did it fall in to?</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Lots of assumptions in that. You seem to forget that the people who did the compying believed with all their heart they were dealing with the Word of God. To change it was to die. They didn't write so much as a single stroke of the quill from memory. They were trained for years and years, devout priests and monks, not your average Joe.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>And of course there is the mystic meg effect, that is, if you say enough stuff that can be suitably interpreted you will be right at some point.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

But the <i>exact</i> words? Over 300 events were prophesised, in great detail <i>All</i> of them came true. You know what the chances of 1 man doing that? Take one of the smallest particles known to man, the electron. They are so small, if you had a line of them one inch long, it would take 190 million years to cound them all. If you had a cubic inch of electrons, with one painted red, and get a mate with a blindfold to pick out your red electron, that is approximately the chance of of one man fulfilling all the prophesies. Mystic Meg effect?

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>How can you prove that those prophecies weren't changed slighty? Or how many prophecies might have been cut out when they didn't come true? There's always rumours about sections of the bible being held back, whole books locked away in secret bunkers in rome etc?</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Thats where faith comes in. You know, the whole personal conviction. Even if some prophesies where cut out, 300 is still a helluva big number to fulfill.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I simply cannot believe because of the bible or take it seriously. Besides which for every astoundingly 'accurate' prophecy there are a load of contradictions, just look at the varying accounts of the crucifiction/resurrection. Anyway, I have to work, this reply has taken over an hour and a half just to write this, very busy today.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

The accounts of the crucifiction were written by different people. Maybe some of them left early, or didnt get to see all of it. Maybe some of the people they were interviewing left early. Surely, if the bible was made up, the people who wrote it would have made sure that the accounts were exactly the same?

CMEast · May 2004

Bah, just lost my post! Flippin work computers! Had written a mini essy's with quotes from Satre and everything... oh well. We will continue this tomorrow <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' />

(PS. thanks for the great discussion though you havent convinced me yet).

The_Finch · May 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>We accept such proof all the time: Someone who has never been known to tell a lie is trusted, where nobody listens to what a liar has to say. And, of course, you would heed the advice of an older, trusted, wise authority figure or mentor over that of a young kid who doesn't have a clue what he's talking about.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

It's important to note that logic isn't an absolute law, nor is it a set of rules to govern human behavior. The examples you cited here are prime examples of empiricism. It's impossible to logically examine every action we take. If John Doe has been known to be completely honest from past experiences, I can infer that he's going to be honest in the future. Observation and inference aren't the same as logical proofs, but they are more than sufficient in the course of daily life. The difference between God and our honest friend is that there is significant evidence that our honest friend exists. I don't need to resort to metaphysics and logic since I can make observations on his existance. I can make no such observations on God's existance.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>A maximally powerful, completely righteous, completely loving, and completely just sentient being.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

That doesn't really tell me what God <i>is.</i>

To say that God is righteous, loving and just is to describe God's personality. Saying that God is loving and just isn't the same as saying that God is infinite or infallible. Personality traits, while interesting, offer no insight to God's nature as an existing being. When you apply positive traits like love and justice to God, are you referring to those traits in the same sense that we use as humans or as something more?

If God is to be a supernatural being, God can not differ from humans simply by degrees. God has to differ in kind. If aliens came to Earth and possessed attributes that are superior to man in every way, that wouldn't make the gods as they're still limited by the physical parameters of the universe. If God is to be a supernatural being, God can not simply possess the love of humanity multiplied to a tremendous degree, nor can God's knowledge be human genious greatly amplified.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>As I said to kida, I dont think you want God to exist at all, you'd love for atheism to be correct, because no God = no accountability, no answering for your actions, no punishment, and no one telling you how to live your life.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

While this isn't specifically addressed to me, I feel the need to respond to it.

The insistence that morality can't be divorced from God is a ridiculous one. A lack of a deity is not a precursor to a descent into moral oblivion. Simply because I don't think that there's an omnipresent voyeur watching my every move and keeping score doesn't mean I've abandoned accountability. I rather hold people accountable in this world instead of holding the threat of hell over their heads.

Atheism isn't a ticket to kill people, kick puppies and steal candy. I don't go around killing people because of a very distinct reason that doesn't involve the divine presence of a deity. If I kill somebody, I've broken a contract I have with my society. If I run around shooting up the place, it will injure my society's ability to exist and advance. In order to reinforce the notion of the social contract, laws have been implemented to punish those who injure the society as a whole.

Marine0I · May 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (The Finch @ May 13 2004, 08:40 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>As I said to kida, I dont think you want God to exist at all, you'd love for atheism to be correct, because no God = no accountability, no answering for your actions, no punishment, and no one telling you how to live your life.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

While this isn't specifically addressed to me, I feel the need to respond to it.

The insistence that morality can't be divorced from God is a ridiculous one. A lack of a deity is not a precursor to a descent into moral oblivion. Simply because I don't think that there's an omnipresent voyeur watching my every move and keeping score doesn't mean I've abandoned accountability. I rather hold people accountable in this world instead of holding the threat of hell over their heads.

Atheism isn't a ticket to kill people, kick puppies and steal candy. I don't go around killing people because of a very distinct reason that doesn't involve the divine presence of a deity. If I kill somebody, I've broken a contract I have with my society. If I run around shooting up the place, it will injure my society's ability to exist and advance. In order to reinforce the notion of the social contract, laws have been implemented to punish those who injure the society as a whole. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
I dont believe it is so rediculous, and its been hashed out before in the morality thread that was around here a little while ago. The results of that thread are a little up in the air, but I still firmly believe that true moral culpability can only be claimed by the theist.

Its undeniable, if you are an atheist, and you die, then you are no longer culpable for anything you did period, because you cease to exist. You may feel guilty for things you do in life, you may grab a little moral code of your own and live by it, but at the end of the day that means zip - nothing. You die, you suffer the same fate as Hitler and Mother Teresa.

You dont automatically descend into moral oblivion sure, but I cant stop from wondering why is it so important for me to do the right thing, if at the end of the day it means nothing? I will die and cease to exist, the people I affected in life will die and cease to exist, eventually this world will cease to exist, and whether I was a mass murderer or a philanthropist means precisely the same - nothing, because I and everything related to me will cease to exist.

When all is said and done - a good life and an evil life are EXACTLY EQUIVALENT. Now both I know and you know that this isnt true - but this is what your moral beliefs seem to be telling us.

B33F · May 2004

Saying that atheism requires faith is silly.
True, there is no proof that god and/or gods don't exist. However, there is also no proof that Santa Claus doesn't exist, so why aren't more people agnostic about Santa Claus?
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Its undeniable, if you are an atheist, and you die, then you are no longer culpable for anything you did period, because you cease to exist. You may feel guilty for things you do in life, you may grab a little moral code of your own and live by it, but at the end of the day that means zip - nothing. You die, you suffer the same fate as Hitler and Mother Teresa.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
All the religious people who die also cease to exist. I think my atheistic moral and ethical system has more merit than a religious moral and ethical system because I use it not from fear of punishment, but from a desire to make the world a happier, better place to live in.
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Atheism isn't a ticket to kill people, kick puppies and steal candy. I don't go around killing people because of a very distinct reason that doesn't involve the divine presence of a deity. If I kill somebody, I've broken a contract I have with my society. If I run around shooting up the place, it will injure my society's ability to exist and advance. In order to reinforce the notion of the social contract, laws have been implemented to punish those who injure the society as a whole.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
I am in strong agreement with this.
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>When all is said and done - a good life and an evil life are EXACTLY EQUIVALENT. Now both I know and you know that this isnt true - but this is what your moral beliefs seem to be telling us.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Well, even if I knew I was going to die soon, I would still live a "good" life. It would make me unhappy to think of myself being remembered by others as a bad person. Therefore, I feel obligated to be a good person.

Caboose · May 2004

I personally like Buddhism. I converted to it about 18 months ago. Before then I was a semi Christian who didn't go to church or never was tought the bible or anything. I read a book on Buddhism and was pulled in.

The general beleifes are life is an ongoing cycle that sucks. Once you figure out exactly what that cycle is you leave it and reach Nirvana.

Life is full of suffering, we suffer because we desire ect...

this is the short way of describing it, I could write several pages, but I am lazy and you don't want to read it anyway. If you're interested tho, read <a href='http://buddhism.about.com/' target='_blank'>this site</a>

It was founded by Siddhartha Gotama (who was an Indian Prince that left home to reach enligntenment as a Hindu and found it and tought it to others as the Buddha, hence Buddhism)

And yes, I am a Buddhist (a bad one, but a buddhist none the less)

SkulkBait · May 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>If no religion is right, then we just stop existing. I hate to bring up pascal's wager, but the religoius people didnt miss anything. Nothing bad came out of believing in the "wrong" religion. If no religion is right, there is no damage done in believing in one of them.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

The only problem with that is that you can't just force yourself to believe. I can't say to myself "You know sklulky, if there is a god its gonna be **** that you don't believe in it..." (Of course I don't really believe this, if there is a god I'm sure it would understand my non-belief and be cool with it, otherwise it wouldn't be worth believing in anyway) "...and if there isn't a God then theres no harm in believing in a fake one, so why don't you just go and become Muslim?". It wouldn't work of course because deep down I don't really think its true, I'd just be going through the motions.

Anyways, I have a semi relavant question I hope can be answered without derailing the thread: Why do religious folk feel the need to force their religion on others? For instance the way they protest abortion or **** marriage or all sorts of other things that are, frankly, none of their damned business? Its not as though two guys getting hitched is going to damn you to hell, so why do you make such a big deal about it?

Marine0I · May 2004

Beef, I think you misunderstood my post, but given its wording thats pretty understandable. What I meant to say was that if you are an atheist, and what you believe (i.e. no afterlife no god) is true, then you become nothing, and so does everyone else, irrespective of their beliefs.

I consider your atheistic moral system flawed. The intentions behind morals seem to be irrelevant to me. At the end of the day you and your morals mean nothing, if what you believe is true. At the end of the day, my morals and me mean something, if what I believe is true.

So pray, tell me, given that you and everything you do is a cosmic zero, a complete null, why is it important that I be nice to you? Why does it matter whether you are good or evil? I consider atheism, atheistic morality and nihilism very closely linked.

People with atheistic morals dont automatically run amok, because most of them have a morality system instilled in them. It might not make rational sense, but its what been ingrained in them so thats what they follow. In the same way - I might grow up believing that 3+4 makes 8. I might go my entire life believing this, and it might never have any negative effects at all. This is despite the fact that it makes no logical and rational sense. Thats how I see people with atheistic morals - they have these beliefs that cannot be enforced with consistency (usually, though a certain poster named Xect actually managed to enforce consistency and atheistic morality to work, at the price of claiming that violent rape, torture and murder of people who have done no wrong according to Western morality is actually good), which does not stand up to logical and reasonable scrutiny, but they pass it off with "Hey, I'm a nice guy, I do good things, obviously my beliefs cant be wrong because I havent slaughtered 300 chickens and shot a beagle"

Skulkbait - correct, you cant just force yourself to believe in something. However, I highly recommend looking into faith, you have nothing to lose that you wont lose regardless.

To answer you semi-relevant question as you put it: Christians want to save people from themselves. They look upon **** marriage much the same way as you would look upon 2 guys pouring petrol over each other and reaching for a lighter - something wrong is about to take place, and you cant just sit by and let it happen. I dont agree with a lot of things they do, such as the hue and cry over **** marriage, but I do understand abortion. They consider unborn children to be human, the equivalent of a living and breathing person. If you believed that human beings were being killed on a daily basis in clinics all over the country, I like to think you'd be upset too.

Christianity - from what I understand of it, there is a huge focus on the importance of people. That's why it seems a little weird to me that they often seem to be the most callous mob around, but it explains why they try and interfere in other peoples stuff. They care (or they SHOULD care) about these people, believe it or not, and they act to prevent stuff. Probably not the best way to go about it, but there's your answer.

taboofires · May 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CMEast @ May 10 2004, 06:39 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Yeah, the Satanic Bible he wrote is really interesting and I totally agree with Athena's view on it. The philosophy is really interesting and makes far more sense than most religions, it sounds fairly logical etc. Then you get to the 'mumbo-jumbo' religious ceremonies and... well it just got daft. I'm sure some of it works if you are incredibly gullible, its like a superstitious self-help group...

Yeah, just incredibly daft. Another one worth reading though.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
The same things can be said of Aleister Crowley's writings. He talks of things like the proverbial trip into the desert (how many prophets got their start), and their significance for discovering truth. He also was helplessly addicted to attention, and made a lot of stuff up for it. It's pretty hard to sort out which is which. It's rather ironic, but the introductions are usually more valuable than the meat of the book.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (big jim)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>As my math teacher once said "It takes a lot of faith to be an Atheist" and I have to agree with her.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

This is true, because athiesm is the believe that a particular god (or any god at all, depending) does not exist. It is just as unprovable as that they do exist, except for the things that are logically impossible (which are few and far between, and aren't anything important).

That does not mean that "atheist" is sometimes used when "nontheist" is the correct term. A nontheist thinks that the question of god is not worth pondering, at least partially because it is not decidable, and that there is not enough time in our lives to worry about it. An amusing example I've seen goes like this:

Deist - God exists.
Atheist - God does not exist.
Agnostic - God might exist, but I can't possibly decide whether he does.
Nontheist - Are you going to eat that?

Some nontheists, like myself, find it particularly hard to believe that a god, having given us the mental faculty to ponder his existance, would hold it against us if his gift determined that he did not exist. If such a thing were true, the god would probably not be worthy of worship, because that's pretty fallible right there, to hold his mistake (or intention) against us.

To live life as a nontheist (or an antheist for that matter) is to hold one's self responsible for all your actions. Some have higher standards than others, naturally.

Simple belief has power. Let's say you believe that aliens are coming in 3 months to destroy the planet. That will have a considerable impact on your life and your actions, regardless of whether or not it is correct. The trick, then, is to find a belief system that has a positive impact on your life. The "best" one is simply the most positive one, but that is impossible to determine (you cannot test them all, nor know ahead of time what impact they will have on your life). So, if your religion makes you significantly happier than having no religion, then you're doing alright.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Z.X. Bogglesteinsky)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>QUOTE (CMEast @ May 12 2004, 10:49 AM)
What happens if no religion is right? I've searched for something to believe in but can't find anything except athiesm, its the only one that makes sense to me.

If no religion is right, then we just stop existing. I hate to bring up pascal's wager, but the religoius people didnt miss anything. Nothing bad came out of believing in the "wrong" religion. If no religion is right, there is no damage done in believing in one of them.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

There are two possibilities that would lead to consequences from choosing the wrong religion. One is that the only god is a vengeful god, opposite to the typical Judeo-Christian god, and that despite this true, evil god not being worthy of worship, and your worship of goodness results in your damnation. You're pretty stuck either way, but I'm just pointing this one out. It's not the important part.

The second possibility is that there is no god (or he has gone on a permanant vacation), and that you have wasted the only thing you have: your life. There is much in religion (more from churches themselves than the root theology) that is only productive if said god exists. You would have more of your life to live if you skipped out on the god-fearing part and stuck with the morality. Consider prayer: if nobody is listening, and you are relying on it as a source of outside assistance, you both create a situation for yourself that you are unwilling to help yourself out of and waste the time and effort that could be spent fixing the problem.

At some point you have to decide whether your life or your afterlife is more important. The hard part is that your life is the only one that you know you have.

SkulkBait · May 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ May 13 2004, 02:25 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Skulkbait - correct, you cant just force yourself to believe in something. However, I highly recommend looking into faith, you have nothing to lose that you wont lose regardless.  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
I have studied various faiths, and none of them make their version of God worth believing in. So I default back to agnosticism (and atheism on the bad days).

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
To answer you semi-relevant question as you put it: Christians want to save people from themselves. They look upon **** marriage much the same way as you would look upon 2 guys pouring petrol over each other and reaching for a lighter - something wrong is about to take place, and you cant just sit by and let it happen. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
You might not be willing to sit around and let it happen, but the way I figure it if two people want to die horribly painfull deaths, who am I to stop them?

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I dont agree with a lot of things they do, such as the hue and cry over **** marriage, but I do understand abortion. They consider unborn children to be human, the equivalent of a living and breathing person. If you believed that human beings were being killed on a daily basis in clinics all over the country, I like to think you'd be upset too.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Abortion probably wasn't a good example... How about the pledge of allegiance? So many christians are so damned adamant about keeping ONE friggen word in there (even though the original didn't have it), like their God would cease to exist if it were removed.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Christianity - from what I understand of it, there is a huge focus on the importance of people. That's why it seems a little weird to me that they often seem to be the most callous mob around, but it explains why they try and interfere in other peoples stuff. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Odd, its never seemed weird to me, a good many of them are hipocrites and using religion for their own purposes. Its human nature and prevelent in any system of belief.

B33F · May 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I consider your atheistic moral system flawed. The intentions behind morals seem to be irrelevant to me. At the end of the day you and your morals mean nothing, if what you believe is true. At the end of the day, my morals and me mean something, if what I believe is true.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

If what I believe is true, your morals "mean nothing".

If what you believe is true, do my morals mean something?

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>So pray, tell me, given that you and everything you do is a cosmic zero, a complete null, why is it important that I be nice to you? Why does it matter whether you are good or evil? I consider atheism, atheistic morality and nihilism very closely linked.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

It is important that you be nice to me because in return, I will be nice to you. If you are rude to me, I may be less-than-polite to you.

I do not see a need for consistency. My morals are designed by me and applied by me. I do admit that my morals are, for the most part, taken from and enforced by society. A society that does not have good morals is inherently unstable.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>People with atheistic morals dont automatically run amok, because most of them have a morality system instilled in them. It might not make rational sense, but its what been ingrained in them so thats what they follow. In the same way - I might grow up believing that 3+4 makes 8.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

I think your example answers your own question. If there was a society that was to teach you that 3+4 equals 8, or that killing is good, that society would quickly fall apart. The only societies that remain, therefore, are the ones that force their members to conform to a certain general moral code. There is a good amount of leeway, but overall we have a specific societal morality.

Bogglesteinsky · May 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (B33F @ May 14 2004, 12:50 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> It is important that you be nice to me because in return, I will be nice to you. If you are rude to me, I may be less-than-polite to you.  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
But why is that important? At the end of the day, whether you are nice to people or nasty to them isn't going to make the slightest bit of difference. Why should I care if you are going to be less than polite to me? Some day, you and I will die, and it will all be forgotten. Why care about what happens now when it won't make any difference in the future?

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I think your example answers your own question. If there was a society that was to teach you that 3+4 equals 8, or that killing is good, that society would quickly fall apart. The only societies that remain, therefore, are the ones that force their members to conform to a certain general moral code. There is a good amount of leeway, but overall we have a specific societal morality.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

I like the way you jumped from "3 + 4 = 8" to "OMG KILL EACH OTHER!!11!" If you grow up believing that 3 + 4 = 8, you will not fall apart, you will just have problems with maths. If you are going to insist on making the jump, I will ask you this: On what grounds can you condemn that society's morals? What gives you the right to say "Joe Bloggs was an evil man."? Because your morality is relative, what gives one man the right to pass judgement on another? What gives one society the right to go to war against another society? What gives a society the right to punish individuals? They all have thier own moral codes, each is as valid as the others.

taboofires · May 2004

If only two societies exist, one that encourages you to steal, murder, etc. so long as you get some good out of it, and one that encourages strong morals (and encourages them to be propegated to the children), which do you think will survive longer? When the going gets tough, the criminal-types will end up culturally extinct.

Morals are important for <i>survival</i>, if not for the individual than for the culture. Even assuming no heavenly mandate at all, it would still be fairly common.

Bogglesteinsky · May 2004

You know you didn't actually answer any of my questions (if you were intending to).

Sure, you might say that one society might be more prosperous, but does that give them the right to impose thier views on another society with different views? In Roman times, people would go to the circus to see people killed (Gladiators). Ok, so it doesn't actively encourage murder, but it makes a business out of killing, and can therefore be said to be promoting it. As far as I can remember, the Roman society didn't fall apart because all its citizens went on drunken murderous rampages. Criminal gans, no matter how violent, almost always have a hierarchal system, with a leader and subordinates, and with a decent leader, crimial societies can survive a very long time (look at the Mafia for example). They have morals, but they are not the same to yours or mine. If we do something wrong, our society puts us in jail. If they do something wrong, they get their "crown jewels" cut off or something like that. Who are you (or I) to say that that is wrong and our way is the correct way? With no solid absolute basis for morality, who can condemn the acts of the Nazis, or the oppression of Communist countries of their own people?

B33F · May 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I like the way you jumped from "3 + 4 = 8" to "OMG KILL EACH OTHER!!11!" If you grow up believing that 3 + 4 = 8, you will not fall apart, you will just have problems with maths. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

I wasn't "jumping", I was giving what I consider a more relevent example. Anyway, a society that teaches that 3 + 4 = 8 <i>will</i> fall apart, because none of their technology will work, their budget calculations won't work, their estimates of required food production will be far off, etc.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>On what grounds can you condemn that society's morals?</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

I would condemn their morals because the Earth is quickly becoming one large society. What happens in one country affects every other country, however indirectly. If another country's morals are very different from my country's morals, there will be a destabilizing effect on world society, however small.

Maveric · May 2004

2+2=4
In math, this is ALWAYS a true statement; a statement that CANNOT be false, at ANY time in ANY dimension. However, 2+1=4 is always a FALSE statement. why? because you cannot get four items from two items and one item. Fortunetly, Religion <i>is not</i> math. Math is Math. Religion is Religion. And those two statements are ALWAYS true, just as 2+2=4 is.

1) No-moral/no-law societies will eventually kill themselves off... there are simply no rules. This is a true statemnt (endless murders with no end to them. dont like someone? *BANG* however, someone might come after you, and thus it escalates)

2) A society with some morals/laws <i>will</i> last for a great deal of time. As long as they are flexable, they can adapt and alter their morals/laws to fit what needs to be done. "Don't kill anyone" is a very vague moral/law, so someone could add-on "Don't kill anyone that kills a family member". This means you cannot seek revenge, but can hire someone else to do it for you. Lets say, after a long blood-war between families hiring hitmen or something they realize that "Hey, this is stupid; lets change it for the better." and they alter the moral/law as to stop the process. Of course, it could go the other way and lead to one or both sides dying off, which is also a totally acceptable outcome (No matter what, you can't lose. The fighting will stop eventually)
Of course, if the society changes too fast [and the morals can't keep up it'll fall apart]... But it can be re-constructed if someone is brave and strong enough.

3) The last one is a totally strict society completly inflexable to any change, and when there is change it's often created so that it <i>apears</i> to be changed but, in fact, nothing has. This society will never experiance a sudden flux of alterations, because it doesn't allow any. It'll last possibly forever... but no one will be happy about it; some groups will be in total oppression, forever, and whoever controls the "morals" of the society will have absolute power. <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif' />

#1 and #3 are obviously the worst examples and would never be allowed by anyone for the sheer point of ... well, inteligence. Unless you're a zombie you won't allow it. #2 is the best choice we have, in fact the only thing we have now, and that statement is always true. <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif' />

FilthyLarry · May 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Z.X. Bogglesteinsky @ May 14 2004, 04:03 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (B33F @ May 14 2004, 12:50 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> It is important that you be nice to me because in return, I will be nice to you. If you are rude to me, I may be less-than-polite to you. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
But why is that important? At the end of the day, whether you are nice to people or nasty to them isn't going to make the slightest bit of difference. Why should I care if you are going to be less than polite to me? Some day, you and I will die, and it will all be forgotten. Why care about what happens now when it won't make any difference in the future?

 </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
It's important for people who value their lives and live in the present.

Should we all just stop eating and die to do a mass exodus to heaven ? And say we all reach that place, then what ? 10 000 + years of walking the 'streets of gold' could get a little boring I think. Why is this more meaningful than living a short life on Earth ?

I don't understand the need to validate one's entire existance upon the whim of some cosmic entity. Do you exist solely to please your parents ?

To lead a 'meaningful' life is subjective. Person A can do something for x years and derive great satisfaction from it while Person B thinks A is wasting time on something useless.

Marine0I · May 2004

So what you are saying larry, is that morals only apply to those who value their lives and live in the present, but have no jurisdiction over people who dont?

Its not 10,00+ years, its eternity. And its not just a stroll down a golden street. If you knew even the basics of the Christian religion, you would realise that Christians consider that human beings are created specifically to be with God, and being with God is pure bliss, given that your purpose of being able to communicate and exist in a personal relationship with an all powerful, all loving God has now been forefilled. Almost all the Christians I have met (and by that I mean real Christians, not your garden variety "ummm... I think I'm a protestant... yeah thats it") seem to have a joy and a satisfaction in life that I find increasingly lacking the more I see of this world.

Given that Christians also believe in a God that gets to dictate Right, Wrong, Purpose and Meaning, then your statement about living to please your parents again seems uniformed. Please, if you consider parents the supreme meaning and ruler of life, the universe and everything, raise you hand and I'll give that statement some credibility.

To lead a meaningful life is not subjective as far as I'm concerned. Either you life has meaning in the end, or it doesnt. According to humanists/atheists, your life has no meaning at all, you are the product of a universal coincidence. You came from nothing, and you are heading to oblivion. So far, no one yet has seriously challenged that idea.

Bogglesteinsky · May 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Maveric @ May 15 2004, 05:17 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>#1 and #3 are obviously the worst examples...</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
I with you agree completely, but nobody has yet answered my question. What gives one society the right to enforce its views on another?

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (B33f)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I would condemn their morals because the Earth is quickly becoming one large society. What happens in one country affects every other country, however indirectly. If another country's morals are very different from my country's morals, there will be a destabilizing effect on world society, however small. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

That is just basically racism. "Your society is different from mine, I feel threatened by it, therefore you are wrong." Close, but no cigar. Without any absolutes, that society could just as easily, and just as justifiably turn round to you and say the same thing. "You are different, you are wrong" and there is nothing you would be able to say to refute them.

B33F · May 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>That is just basically racism. "Your society is different from mine, I feel threatened by it, therefore you are wrong." Close, but no cigar. Without any absolutes, that society could just as easily, and just as justifiably turn round to you and say the same thing. "You are different, you are wrong" and there is nothing you would be able to say to refute them.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Well, we are actually in a similar situation right now. We have different reasons for moral systems, and we each think the other is wrong, and there is little we can do to persuade each other. You think you are right, I think I am right. Similarly, I think my country's moral system is more right than that of various other countries, and the population of those other countries probably thinks that their moral system is better than mine.

FilthyLarry · May 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
So what you are saying larry, is that morals only apply to those who value their lives and live in the present, but have no jurisdiction over people who dont?
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Morals apply to everyone. Some people are just less interested in following them than others. Generally people that actually value their lives (life in general) and are interested in living for the day will do a better job of following said morals.

The point being that some future event e.g. death does not invalidate the fact that it behooves one to live well from day to day. Whether or not your actions have any impact on someone 10000 years later is besides the point for the here and now.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Its not 10,00+ years, its eternity. And its not just a stroll down a golden street. If you knew even the basics of the Christian religion, you would realise that Christians consider that human beings are created specifically to be with God, and being with God is pure bliss, given that your purpose of being able to communicate and exist in a personal relationship with an all powerful, all loving God has now been forefilled. Almost all the Christians I have met (and by that I mean real Christians, not your garden variety "ummm... I think I'm a protestant... yeah thats it") seem to have a joy and a satisfaction in life that I find increasingly lacking the more I see of this world.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

So it's not just a stroll down a golden street... ok - so what is it exactly ? My point is that God is still God and you will still be less than God. What is so different about Heaven versus Earth then ? What is the appeal ? If you're not satisfied with this life what is it that will make the next one so great ?

Is it being closer to God ? What does that mean in <b>real</b> terms ? Is every other single desire of yours going to cease to be ?

Also, I am very familiar with the Christian Religion. Having been raised a Christian and participating in Church activities etc. for many years I have essentialy <i>been there, done that</i>. I saw very little real joy and satisfaction. Mostly tired preachers going through the motions. Most of them couldn't crack a smile if their afterlife depended on it.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Given that Christians also believe in a God that gets to dictate Right, Wrong, Purpose and Meaning, then your statement about living to please your parents again seems uniformed. Please, if you consider parents the supreme meaning and ruler of life, the universe and everything, raise you hand and I'll give that statement some credibility.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Which God is that ? Is that Yahweh - the god who decides that he doesn't want idols made for him like those other wannabe deities, but borrowing some poems describing other gods is just fine.

Also, please note : I did not make a statement, I asked a question. I do not consider my parents or parents in general the end all and be all etc. So why do you consider God - the Father - the end all and be all of your existance ?

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
To lead a meaningful life is not subjective as far as I'm concerned. Either you life has meaning in the end, or it doesnt. According to humanists/atheists, your life has no meaning at all, you are the product of a universal coincidence. You came from nothing, and you are heading to oblivion. So far, no one yet has seriously challenged that idea.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

You can still lead an eternal life and accomplish nothing. People can still subjectively tell you that they consider a stay in Heaven to be a waste of time. IMO meaning is always subjective.

Bogglesteinsky · May 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (B33F @ May 15 2004, 05:41 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Well, we are actually in a similar situation right now. We have different reasons for moral systems, and we each think the other is wrong, and there is little we can do to persuade each other. You think you are right, I think I am right. Similarly, I think my country's moral system is more right than that of various other countries, and the population of those other countries probably thinks that their moral system is better than mine.  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
Exactly. And with relativism, that is all you can do. But people who claim to be relativists take it a lot further, persecuting people because they are different, invading their country because they do not like the way they break their eggs.

With relativisim, all you can do is agree to disagree.

B33F · May 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Z.X. Bogglesteinsky @ May 15 2004, 12:04 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (B33F @ May 15 2004, 05:41 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Well, we are actually in a similar situation right now. We have different reasons for moral systems, and we each think the other is wrong, and there is little we can do to persuade each other. You think you are right, I think I am right. Similarly, I think my country's moral system is more right than that of various other countries, and the population of those other countries probably thinks that their moral system is better than mine. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Exactly. And with relativism, that is all you can do. But people who claim to be relativists take it a lot further, persecuting people because they are different, invading their country because they do not like the way they break their eggs.

With relativisim, all you can do is agree to disagree.  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
Fun to argue about it, though.

taboofires · May 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Z.X. Bogglesteinsky @ May 14 2004, 07:07 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> You know you didn't actually answer any of my questions (if you were intending to).

Sure, you might say that one society might be more prosperous, but does that give them the right to impose thier views on another society with different views? In Roman times, people would go to the circus to see people killed (Gladiators). Ok, so it doesn't actively encourage murder, but it makes a business out of killing, and can therefore be said to be promoting it. As far as I can remember, the Roman society didn't fall apart because all its citizens went on drunken murderous rampages. Criminal gans, no matter how violent, almost always have a hierarchal system, with a leader and subordinates, and with a decent leader, crimial societies can survive a very long time (look at the Mafia for example). They have morals, but they are not the same to yours or mine. If we do something wrong, our society puts us in jail. If they do something wrong, they get their "crown jewels" cut off or something like that. Who are you (or I) to say that that is wrong and our way is the correct way? With no solid absolute basis for morality, who can condemn the acts of the Nazis, or the oppression of Communist countries of their own people?  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
The poor treatment in those examples goes to the outsiders: prisoners of war, criminals, anyone who isn't a criminal in the case of the mafia/gangs, the scapegoats of the nazis. They were causing other organizations/societies to crumble.

The communists are a different issue - they used questionable methods to accomplish goals that they considered of higher value, like equity. Much of the problem was a side effect of their absolute power methods, which require oppression to maintain. The justification is basically, "they don't know what's good for them!"

Regardless, none of those examples apply, as they are outside what that kind of evolution can actually effect. I didn't say it was the whole answer, but rather that it is a way that <i>some</i> morals can naturally spread. In this case, the "right" morals are simply the ones that are effective.

So no, I wasn't really intending to answer your questions <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' />

Moral relativism, however, is both self-defeating and contradictory. It is impossible for it to be true. There is an absolute truth in morals, a "best" set (in this case, most moral). That isn't to say that we know which set is best, nor do we have a way of finding out, but rather just that it exists. But we can at least try to get close.

Legionnaired · May 2004

Seeing as this is the only post specifically in response to what I've said, it'll be the only one I try and stick my nose into.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>We accept such proof all the time: Someone who has never been known to tell a lie is trusted, where nobody listens to what a liar has to say. And, of course, you would heed the advice of an older, trusted, wise authority figure or mentor over that of a young kid who doesn't have a clue what he's talking about.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

It's important to note that logic isn't an absolute law, nor is it a set of rules to govern human behavior. The examples you cited here are prime examples of empiricism. It's impossible to logically examine every action we take. If John Doe has been known to be completely honest from past experiences, I can infer that he's going to be honest in the future. Observation and inference aren't the same as logical proofs, but they are more than sufficient in the course of daily life. The difference between God and our honest friend is that there is significant evidence that our honest friend exists. I don't need to resort to metaphysics and logic since I can make observations on his existance. I can make no such observations on God's existance.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Yet, there is sufficient evidence that the people who wrote the scriptures actually did exist, and more still to show that their writings have gone suprisingly unedited.

So, if their writings claim that God told them the savior would come and walk into Jerusalem in X ammount of time, or that He would say certain things at his Crucifixion, and that happens with such a small margin of error that it's damn near scientific, that in and of itself is evidence of divine workings.

It is impossible to predict to the day when a single person is going to do anything, especially 700 years ahead of time. (My bad on the 1300, I screw up all the time with BC time.) It may be possible to predict the actions of a society or a large group of people, responding to a socio/economic stimulus, but the sheer impossibility of such a specific statement being correct hints that the man who is writing it knows what he is talking about.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>A maximally powerful, completely righteous, completely loving, and completely just sentient being.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

That doesn't really tell me what God <i>is.</i>

To say that God is righteous, loving and just is to describe God's personality. Saying that God is loving and just isn't the same as saying that God is infinite or infallible. Personality traits, while interesting, offer no insight to God's nature as an existing being. When you apply positive traits like love and justice to God, are you referring to those traits in the same sense that we use as humans or as something more?

If God is to be a supernatural being, God can not differ from humans simply by degrees. God has to differ in kind. If aliens came to Earth and possessed attributes that are superior to man in every way, that wouldn't make the gods as they're still limited by the physical parameters of the universe. If God is to be a supernatural being, God can not simply possess the love of humanity multiplied to a tremendous degree, nor can God's knowledge be human genious greatly amplified.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

God is a spiritual being, sovereign to the universe.

Perhaps that is a better definition. God is not affected by anything that happens in the universe except by His choosing, and can change it, create it, or destroy it at will because of His sovereignty.

So, God does in fact differ in kind, yet He still has those personality traits. However, they are not human traits multiplied to an extreme level, they are those things which exist because he exists, and they exist in us only in fragmented forms. We were created to have them in their entirety and perfection (read: created in His image), yet do not due to the barrier or sin we have driven between Him and us.

I hope we can work with that definition for the purposes of this thread.
{Edited to fix quotes.}

The_Finch · May 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I hope we can work with that definition for the purposes of this thread.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

As do I. Let's get going on it. Considering the track of the discussion, I'm going to limit my arguments to the Judeo-Christian God, or God with a big "G."

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>God is a spiritual being, sovereign to the universe.

Perhaps that is a better definition. God is not affected by anything that happens in the universe except by His choosing, and can change it, create it, or destroy it at will because of His sovereignty. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Well, in order to say that God is a spiritual being and sovereign to the universe, you have to define what a spiritual being consists of. While sovereign places God outside of the bounds of the universe, what does it mean to be a spiritual being? While such a definition will probably include immaterial, I want to know what else it consists of.

The second part of the quote, God being unaffected by our universe except by his choosing, seems to be odd. Can God be affected by our universe at all? As a perfect being, the effects of our universe on God can't be for improvement. One can't become <i>more</i> perfect and it seems unlikely that God would choose to become less perfect, if indeed perfection even allowed for such a degradation. What kind of power does God possess that lets him alter the universe at will?

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>So, God does in fact differ in kind, yet He still has those personality traits. However, they are not human traits multiplied to an extreme level, they are those things which exist because he exists, and they exist in us only in fragmented forms. We were created to have them in their entirety and perfection (read: created in His image), yet do not due to the barrier or sin we have driven between Him and us.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

How is humanity possessing a fraction of God's attributes different from God having a multiplied amount of human attributes? If humans are 0.1 and God is 1, how does that differ from humans being 1 and God being 10?

How can God's "love" differ in kind, yet still be defined by the human definition of love? If God's version of love is nothing like our version, why use our version to define it? Wouldn't that be similar to comparing an orange and a rutabaga, then calling them both oranges? Either God becomes summarily bound by the limitations of human language as we reduce God to an anthropomorphic level, in which case a supernatural being possesses natural qualities, or the application of the word love is nonsensical and utterly meaningless.

There are two scenarios here.

1. If we can use human language and definitions to speak accurately about God, then God doesn't differ in kind. He ceases to be supernatural and becomes a natural being.

2. If we can not use human language and definitions to speak accurately about God, then any qualities or terms we apply are meaningless and God can't be known.

Legionnaired · May 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>The second part of the quote, God being unaffected by our universe except by his choosing, seems to be odd. Can God be affected by our universe at all? As a perfect being, the effects of our universe on God can't be for improvement. One can't become <i>more</i> perfect and it seems unlikely that God would choose to become less perfect, if indeed perfection even allowed for such a degradation. What kind of power does God possess that lets him alter the universe at will? </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

God is emotionally affected by the universe, the Bible is full of places where God relates not only with justice and absolute perspective, but also with emotions of affection, anger, and even jealousy.

This doesn't make Him less perfect, yet His state is still changed. Yet, there are also places where He says He will act in such a way as to end whatever affects him. Sin, for example, was dealt a fatal blow, and will be completely distroyed through Christ.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>How is humanity possessing a fraction of God's attributes different from God having a multiplied amount of human attributes? If humans are 0.1 and God is 1, how does that differ from humans being 1 and God being 10?
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Perhaps I used a bad example. Here's a better one:

God's traits are pure and complete, where ours are tainted by sin. Our love has lust mixed throughout, where God has none.

I'm going to skip this part of the arguement until later when I am less tired, plus I really want to get to your next point...

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>There are two scenarios here.

1. If we can use human language and definitions to speak accurately about God, then God doesn't differ in kind. He ceases to be supernatural and becomes a natural being.

2. If we can not use human language and definitions to speak accurately about God, then any qualities or terms we apply are meaningless and God can't be known.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Both scenarios are entirely true, thanks to Christ.

We can see what Godly traits and love are through Christ. He was both God and Man, and thus, we can see God's love through Him. He came down to our level to show us just that.

Yet, all the adjectives in the English language cannot even try to describe the depths of God's love and forgiveness. We can express all that God has showed us through Christ, yet we can't define it in its entirety. We can show that it is there, and hint at what it's love means to our lives, but it's impossible to put a number, or a limit on God's love with human knowledge. Christ brought God, as we previously knew him, down to the level of mankind, without falling into sin Himself.

In short, He shows us all we need to know about God now, in this life. The rest we can learn for ourselves in the next.

I apologize for some of the utterly craptastic arguments I may have offered here, I'll try to clean some of this up tomorrow when I'm better rested. Disagree with whatever you will, please.

Confuzor · May 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Please, show me the passage that shows the Apostle Paul believed in predestination. Paul believed in an omniscent God, a God that knew everything and anything. And that included the fates of humans. However, there is a huge difference between knowing what someone will do, and predestining them to do it.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

It may simply be a problem with the translation, but I’ve always had a huge beef with Exodus when it says that the Lord “hardened Pharaoh’s heart”, 9:12, 10:1, 10:29, 10:27, etc. I have heard someone say to me that God made use of Pharaoh’s already stubborn attitude against the Israelites, to show His work. That might possibly be the case, but ever the negative person that I am, it can easily be interpreted that God manipulated Pharaoh to make some God awful decisions so that God can use Egypt as a whipping boy to impress the Israelites. What further disturbs me is that at times Pharaoh said that he would release the people if Moses would put an end to plague “x”, and then God would “harden Pharaoh’s heart”.

Again, it might just be how Moses phrased Deuteronomy, but we’ll never be sure, so I don’t think it will ever be resolved in my mind.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Saying that atheism requires faith is silly.
True, there is no proof that god and/or gods don't exist. However, there is also no proof that Santa Claus doesn't exist, so why aren't more people agnostic about Santa Claus?</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

The existence or non-existence of Santa Claus is so trivial so as it has no huge effect on our overall lives. True, if we suddenly had proof that the Santa Claus we know of today did exist, we might be surprised, but it is of little consequence to our overall lives. Atheism does require faith because it puts numerous important issues at stake, some which will make people react towards you in a certain way, either in praise or ridicule, (even though people might think you’re crazy if you believe in Santa, I don’t know of any case where people would persecute you because of this belief). Some issues transcend beyond life itself; atheism is a wager that God doesn’t exist, hence there is no afterlife. If an atheist knows that he/she is wrong, he/she knows that there will be drastic consequences because of this. This is why atheism requires faith.

Heck, I had a hell of a lot more to write, but I just basically had all the arguments that I meant to make and more with my sister. I'll save it for another time.

Religious Spectrum

Comments